s* 


THE  NATIONAL  EDITION 


This  edition  is  strictly  limited  to  seventeen  hundred- 
signed,  numbered  and  registered  sets. 

Number 

CURRENT  LITERATURE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


^^^^p^4^^f 


Manager 


•         >      »         »      c     • 


.«•     t^tti 


m  m 

R    11 

k  *' *T^H 

B^^H 

V, 

WgM 

■  M 

BBr^wBf 

T?  /^ 


GREAT  DEBATES   IN 

AMERICAN  HISTORY 

•  a.' 

From  the  Debates  in  the  British  Parliament  on  the 

Colonial  Stamp  Act  (1764-1765)  to  the  Debates 

in  Congress  at  the  Close  of  the  Taft 

Administration  (1912-1913) 


EDITED 


MARION  MILLS  MILLER,  Litt.D.  (Princeton) 

Editor  of  "The  Life  and  Works  of  Abraham  Lincoln,"  etc. 


IN  FOURTEEN  VOLUMES 

EACH    DEALING  WITH  A  SPECIFIC   SUBJECT,  AND    CONTAINING    A    SPECIAL  INTRODUC- 
TION   BY    A   DISTINGUISHED    AMERICAN   STATESMAN   OR   PUBLICIST 


VOLUME  TWO 

Foreign  Relations:  Part  One 

With  an  Introduction  by  William  Jennings  Bryan,  LL.D. 
Secretary  of  State 


CURRENT  LITERATURE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK 


ii     a. 
J- 


Copyright,  1913,  by 
CURRENT  LITERATURE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


"V 


:•' ;  !•' : ' .  •'  "t 


Press  of  J.  J,  UttH  &  Ives  Co.,  New  York 


*> 


1 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  TWO 


INTRODUCTION:     International  Rivalry  in  Ideals 
By  William  Jennings  Bbyan 

CHAPTER 

I.  THE   FRENCH   ALLIANCE     . 


i 


I 


Controversy  over  President  Washington's  Proclamation  of  Neu- 
trality in  Franco-British  War,  nullifying  our  Treaty  with 
France :  in  favor,  Alexander  Hamilton  (N.  Y.) ,  opposed, 
James  Madison  (Va.) 

II.  COMMERCIAL  TREATY  WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN  {Jay's 

Treaty) 28 

Debate  in  the  House  on  the  resolution  of  Edward  Livingston 
(N.  Y.)  calling  on  President  for  Treaty  Correspondence:  in 
favor,  James  Madison   (Va.),  Albert  Gallatin   (Pa.). 

Debate  in  the  House  on  Action  to  Effect  the  Treaty:  in  favor, 
Theodore  Sedgwick  (Mass.),  William  V.  Murray  (Md.), 
Fisher  Ames  (Mass.);  opposed,  William  B.  Giles  (Va.). 

III.  THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE 57 

Farewell  Address  of  President  Washington:     "No  Entangling 

Alliances. ' ' 
Debate  in  the  House  on  Peace  Resolutions:  in  favor,  Richard 
Sprigg,  Jr.   (Md.),  William  B.  Giles   (Va.),  John  Nich- 
olas  (Va.),  Albert  Gallatin   (Pa.),  Edward  Livingston 
(N.   Y.);    opposed,   Samuel   Sitgreaves    (Pa.),   Harrison 
Gray  Otis  (Mass.),  Jonathan  Dayton  (N.  J.),  Robert  G. 
Harper  (S.  C),  John  Rutledge,  Jr.  (S.  C),  Samuel  Sew- 
all   (Mass.),  Samuel  W.  Dana   (Ct.),  Nathaniel  Smith      / 
(Ct.),  John  Williams  (N.  Y.),  Thomas  Pinckney  (S.  C),   / 
John  Allen  (Ct.),  James  A.  Bayard,  Sr.  (Del.). 

T.  THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 87 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  forcible  seizure  of  New  Orleans: 
in  favor,  James  Ross  (Pa.),  Samuel  White  (Del.), 
Gouverneur  Morris  (N.  Y.)j  opposed,  John  Breckin- 
ridge (Ky.),  De  Witt  Clinton  (N.  Y.),  Stevens  T.  Mason 
(Va.),  James  Jackson  (Ga.). 
Debate  in  the  Senate  on  Constitutionality  of  the  Purchase:  in 
favor,  Senator  Jackson,  Robert  Wright  (Md.),  John  Tay- 
lor (Va.),  Wilson  C.  Nicholas  (Va.),  Senator  Breckin- 
ridge, John  Quincy  Adams  (Mass.) ;  opposed,  William  H. 
Wells  (Del.),  Timothy  Pickering  (Mass.),  Uriah  Tracy 
(Ct.). 

iii 


284643 


iv  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

CHAPTER 

V.  THE    EMBARGO 113 

Debate  in  the  House  on  First  Embargo:  in  favor,  Richard 
M.  Johnson  (Ky.),  John  Love  (Va.)  James  Fisk  (Vt.), 
George  W.  Campbell  (Tenn.) ;  opposed,  John  Randolph 
(Va.),  Josiah  Masters   (N.  Y.),  Philip  B.  Key   (Md.). 

Tilt  between  James  Hillhouse  (Ct.)  and  William  B.  Giles 
(Va.)   on  "Public  Honor  vs.  Private  Interest.' ' 

VI.  RESISTANCE  OR  SUBMISSION  TO  GREAT  BRITAIN!  .     147 
Debate  in  the  House:  in  favor  of  war  measures,  Richard  M. 

Johnson  (Ky.),  Robert  Wright  (Md.),  John  C.  Calhoun 

(S.  C);  opposed,  John  Randolph  (Va.). 
Debate   in    the   House    on   the    Second    Embargo:    in    favor, 

Henry    Clay    (Ky.) ;     opposed,     Mr.    Randolph,    Josiah 

Quincy,  3rd  (Mass.). 

VH.  THE  SECOND  WAR  WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN  .  .  .182 
Debate  in  the  House:  in  favor  of  war,  Felix  Grundy  (Tenn.), 
Henry  Clay  (Ky.) ;  opposed,  Joseph  Pearson  (N.  C), 
Timothy  Pitkin  (Ct.),  Josiah  Quincy,  3rd  (Mass.),  John 
Randolph  (Va.). 
Second  Debate  in  the  House:  in  favor  of  war,  John  C.  Cal- 
houn  (S.  C);  opposed,  Daniel  Webster  (N.  H.). 

VIII.  RECOGNITION     OF     SOUTH     AMERICAN     REPUBLICS 

(The  Monroe  Doctrine) 220 

Debate  in  the  House :  in  favor  of  recognition,  Henry  Clay 
(Ky.),  Thomas  B.  Robertson  (La.),  John  Floyd  (Va.). 

Second  Debate  in  the  House:  in  favor  of  recognition,  David 
Trimble  (Ky.) ;   opposed,  Robert  S.  Garnett   (Va.). 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  Representation  in  the  Panama  Con- 
gress: in  favor,  Josiah  S.  Johnston  (La.);  opposed,  Rob- 
ert Y.  Hayne  (S.  C),  Levi  Woodbury  (N.  H.). 

Attack  of  John  Randolph  (Va.)  on  President  John  Quincy 
Adams  and  Henry  Clay:     "Blifil  and  Black  George/' 

IX.  SYMPATHY      WITH      EUROPEAN      REVOLUTIONISTS 

(Greek) 249 

Debate  in  the  House  on  resolutions  of  sympathy  with  Greek  in- 
dependence: in  favor,  Daniel  Webster  (Mass.);  opposed, 
John  Randolph  (Va.). 

X.  SYMPATHY      WITH      EUROPEAN      REVOLUTIONISTS 

(Hungarian  and  Irish) 265 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  giving  a  reception  to  Louis  Kossuth, 
the  Hungarian  exile:  speakers  of  varying  views,  Henry  S. 
Foote  (Miss.),  John  P.  Hale  (N.  H.),  William  C.  Daw- 
son  (Ga.),  Lewis  Cass   (Mich.). 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  intervention  in  behalf  of  condemned 
Irish  patriots:  in  favor,  Gen.  James  Shields  (111.),  William 
H.  Seward  (N.  Y.),  Senator  Cass;  opposed,  George  E. 
Badger  (N.  C). 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  Intervention  in  Foreign  Affairs:  in 
favor,  Senators  Cass  and  Seward;  opposed,  John  H.  Clarke 
(R.I.) 


/CHAPTER 

V     xi. 


4 


CONTENTS    OF    VOLUME    TWO  v 

PAGE 

XL  "FIFTY-FOUR      FORTY      OR     FIGHT' '      (The      Oregon 

Boundary) 302 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  Assertion  of  American  Claims  in 
Oregon  Boundary  Dispute  with  Great  Britain:  in  favor, 
Louis  F.  Linn  (Mo.),  Thomas  H.  Benton  (Mo.),  Levi 
Woodbuey  (N.  H.);  opposed,  John  C.  Calhoun  (S.  C), 
Geoege  McDuffie  (S.  C). 

Second  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  question:  in  favor,  Edwaed 
A.  Hannegan  (Ind.),  William  Allen  (O.),  Lewis  Cass 
(Mich.),  Sydney  Beeese  (111.) ;  opposed,  Senator  Calhoun, 
Senator  Benton,  John  J.  Crittenden  (Ky.),  Daniel  Web- 
stee  (Mass.),  William  L.  Dayton  (N.  J.),  William  H. 
Haywood  (N.  C). 

Debate  in  the  House  on  terminating  joint  occupancy  of  Oregon 
with  Great  Britain:  in  favor,  Heney  W.  Hilliard  (Ala.), 
Howell  Cobb  (Ga.),  Stephen  A.  Douglas  (111.);  opposed, 
William  L.  Yancey  (Ala.),  Eobeet  M.  T.  Huntee  (Va.), 
Jefpeeson  Davis   (Miss.). 

XII.  THE  MEXICAN  WAR 333 

Tilt  in  the  Senate,  between  John  J.  Crittenden  (Ky.)  and 
Geoege  McDuffie  (S.  C),  on  Power  of  Congress  to  make 
War  or  Peace. 

Debate  in  the  House  on  the  Annexation  of  Texas:  in  favor, 
Chaeles  J.  Ingeesoll  (Pa.),  Stephen  A.  Douglas  (HI.); 
opposed,  Robeet  C.  Winthbop  (Mass.),  John  Quincy  Adams 
(Mass.). 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Prosecution  of  the  War  with 
Mexico:  in  favor,  Gen.  Samuel  Houston  (Tex.),  Lewis 
Cass  (Mich.);  opposed,  John  C.  Calhoun  (S.  C),  John 
M.  Beeeien  (Ga.),  James  D.  Westcott  (Fla.),  Senator 
Ceittenden. 

Debate  in  the  House  on  Admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union: 
in  favor,  Mr.  Douglas;  opposed,  Julius  Rockwell 
(Mass.) 

Debate  in  the  House  on  Continuance  of  the  War:  in  favor, 
Mr.  Douglas,  J.  H.  Lumpkin  (Ga.) ;  opposed,  Joshua 
R.  Giddings  (O.),  Columbus  Delano  (O.),  John  W.  Hous- 
ton (Del.),  John  Quincy  Adams  (Mass.),  Robeet  Toombs 
(Ga.). 

Speech  of  Senator  Thomas  Coewin   (O.)   against  the  War. 

Tilt  between  Senators  Thomas  H.  Benton  (Mo.)  and  John 
C  Calhoun  (S.  C.)  on  "Who  Is  Responsible  for  the  Wart" 

Arraignment  of  President  Polk  by  Representative  Abraham 
Lincoln  (HI.). 


XIII.  THE  TRENT  AFFAIR 378 

Debate  in  the  Senate  on  delivery  of  the  captured  Confederate 
Commissioners  to  Great  Britain:  in  favor,  Chaeles  Sumnee 
(Mass.);  opposed,  John  P.  Hale  (N.  H.). 


/ 


vi  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

I 


XIV.""THE  PURCHASE  OP  ALASKA. 396 

Debate  in  the  House:  in  favor,  Gen.  Nathaniel  P.  Banks 
(Mass.),  Burus  P.  Spalding  (O.),  Gen.  Robert  C.  Schenck 
(O.),  Thaddeus  Stevens  (Pa.),  Leonard  Myers  (Pa.),  Wil- 
liam Higby  (Cal.) ;  opposed,  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn 
(Wis.),  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler  (Mass.),  John  A.  Peters 
(Me.),  Samuel  Shellabarges  (O.),  Hiram  Price  (la.), 
Dennis  McCarthy  (N.  Y.). 

XV.   THE  ALABAMA  CLAIMS 

Argument  of  Senator  Charles  Sumner   (Mass.)  against  the 
Johnson-Clarendon  Treaty. 


ILLUSTRATIONS  IN  VOLUME  TWO 

MM 

James  Monroe      .        •        .        .        .        .         Frontispiece 

Photogravure 

John  Jay      .        .        .        .        .        .  .        #        .56 

Photogravure 

1  'The  Contrast" 83 

[American  vs.  French  Liberty] 

The  American  Snapping  Turtle  .        .        .        .        .        .    142 

[Embargo] 

Josiah  the  First 180 

Caricature  of  Josiah  Quincj,  3rd 

Free  Trade  and  Sailors'  Rights 201 

John  Bull  Stung  to  Agony  by  the  Wasp  and  the  Hornet    .    213 

The  Fall  of  Washington,  or  Maddy   [Madison]   in  Full 

Flight 218 

{ Lewis  Cass 316 

Photogravure 

General  (C)ass  Beginning  Operations,  Losing  No  Time    .    321 

Clearing  the  Augean  Stable 335 

[Advent  of  Whig  Administration] 

The  Mexican  Rulers  Migrating  from  Matamoras  with  Their 

Treasures 344 

A  War  President 347 

Caricature  of  Lewis  Cass 

The  Land  of  Liberty 368 

Cartoon  by  Bichard  Doyle  in  London  Punch 

An  Available  Candidate 377 

Caricature  of  General  Scott 

Settling  the  Alabama  Claims 445 


vu 


INTBODUCTION 


International  Rivalry  in  Ideals1 

William  Jennings  Bryan,  LL.  D. 
Secretary  of  State 

WE  have  reason  to  look  with  some  degree  of  pride 
upon  the  achievement  of  the  United  States ;  we 
contemplate  the  present  with  satisfaction  and 
look  to  the  future  with  hope,  and  yet  we  may  well  re- 
member that  we  are  but  building  upon  the  foundations 
that  have  been  laid  for  us.  We  did  not  create  the  fertile 
soil  that  is  the  basis  of  our  agricultural  greatness;  the 
streams  that  drain  and  feed  our  valleys  were  not  chan- 
neled by  human  hands.  We  did  not  fashion  the  climate 
that  gives  us  the  white  cotton  belt  of  the  South,  the 
yellow  wheat  belt  of  the  North,  and  the  central  corn 
belt  that  joins  the  two  and  overlaps  them  both.  We  do 
not  gather  up  the  moisture  and  fix  the  date  of  the  early 
and  later  rains;  we  did  not  hide  away  in  the  mountains 
the  gold  and  the  silver;  we  did  not  store  in  the  earth 
the  deposits  of  copper  and  of  zinc;  we  did  not  create 
the  measures  of  coal  and  the  beds  of  iron.  All  these 
natural  resources,  which  we  have  but  commenced  to  de- 
velop, are  the  gift  of  Him  before  whom  we  bow  in 
gratitude  to-night. 

Nor  are  we  indebted  to  the  Heavenly  Father  alone, 
for  we  have  received  much  from  those  who  are  separated 
from  us  by  the  Atlantic.  If  we  have  great  and  flourish- 
ing industries  we  must  not  forget  that  every  nation  in 

1  Adapted  from  a  speech  delivered  in  London  at  the  annual  banquet  of 
the  American  Society  on  Thanksgiving  Day,  November  26,  1903. 

1 


?.....        GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Europe  has  sent  us  its  trained  and  skilled  artisans.  If 
we  have  made  intellectual  progress,  we  must  remember 
that  those  who  crossed  the  ocean  as  pioneers  brought 
with  them  their  intelligence  and  their  desire  for  learning. 
Even  our  religion  is  not  of  American  origin.  We  laid 
the  foundations  of  our  church  in  the  Holy  Land,  and 
those  who  came  in  the  Mayflower  and  in  other  ships 
brought  a  love  of  religious  liberty.  Free  speech,  which 
has  been  developed  in  our  country,  and  which  we  prize 
so  much,  is  not  of  American  origin.  I  have  been  pro- 
foundly impressed  with  the  part  that  Englishmen  have 
taken  in  establishing  the  right  of  free  speech.  Passing 
through  the  Bank  of  England  my  attention  was  called 
to  a  protest  that  Admiral  Cochrane  wrote  upon  the  bank 
note  with  which  he  paid  the  thousand  pounds  fine  that 
had  been  assessed  against  him.  I  was  interested  in  that 
protest  because  it  showed  a  fearlessness  that  indicates 
the  possibilities  of  the  race.  Let  me  read  what  he  said : 
"My  health  having  suffered  by  long  and  close  confine- 
ment, and  my  oppressors  having  resolved  to  deprive  me 
of  property  or  life,  I  submit  to  robbery  to  protect  myself 
from  murder  in  the  hope  that  I  shall  live  to  bring  the 
delinquents  to  justice." 

That  is  the  spirit  that  moves  the  world !  There  was 
a  man  in  prison.  He  must  pay  his  fine  in  order  to 
gain  his  liberty.  He  believed  the  action  of  the  court 
unjust.  He  knew  that  if  he  stayed  there  he  would  lose 
his  life  and  lose  the  chance  for  vindication,  and  yet, 
as  he  was  going  forth  from  the  prison  doors,  he  did  not 
go  with  bowed  head  or  cringing,  but  flung  his  protest 
in  the  face  of  his  oppressors  and  told  them  he  submitted 
to  robbery  to  protect  his  life  in  the  hope  that,  having 
escaped  from  their  hands,  he  might  bring  them  to  justice. 
I  like  that  in  the  Englishman,  and  during  my  short 
knowledge  of  public  affairs  I  have  looked  across  the 
ocean  and  admired  the  moral  courage  and  the  manliness 
of  those  Englishmen  who  have  dared  to  stand  out  against 
overwhelming  odds  and  assert  their  opinions  before  the 
world. 

We  sometimes  feel  that  we  have  a  sort  of  proprietary 
interest  in  the  principles  of  government  set  forth  in 


INTRODUCTION  3 

the  Declaration  of  Independence.  That  is  a  document 
which  we  have  given  to  the  world,  and  yet  the  principles 
set  forth  therein  were  not  invented  by  an  American. 
Thomas  Jefferson  expressed  them  in  felicitous  language 
and  put  them  into  permanent  form,  but  the  principles 
had  been  known  before.  The  doctrine  that  all  men  are 
created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  with  inalienable 
rights,  that  governments  were  instituted  among  men 
to  secure  these  rights,  and  that  they  derived  their  just 
power  from  the  consent  of  the  governed — this  doctrine 
which  stands  four  square  with  all  the  world  was  not  con- 
ceived in  the  United  States,  it  did  not  spring  from  the 
American  mind — ay,  it  did  not  come  so  much  from  any 
mind  as  it  was  an  emanation  from  the  heart,  and  it  had 
been  in  the  hearts  of  men  for  ages.  Before  Columbus 
turned  the  prow  of  his  ship  toward  the  west  on  that 
eventful  voyage,  before  the  Barons  wrested  Magna 
Charta  from  King  John — yes,  before  the  Eoman  legions 
landed  on  the  shores  of  this  island — ay,  before  Homer 
sang — that  sentiment  had  nestled  in  the  heart  of  man, 
and  nerved  him  to  resist  the  oppressor.  That  sentiment 
was  not  even  of  human  origin.  Our  own  great  Lincoln 
declared  that  it  was  God  himself  who  implanted  in  every 
human  heart  the  love  of  liberty. 

Yes,  when  God  created  man,  He  gave  him  life.  He 
linked  to  life  the  love  of  liberty,  and  what  God  hath 
joined  together  let  no  man  put  asunder.  We  have  re- 
ceived great  blessings  from  God  and  from  all  the  world, 
and  what  is  our  duty?  We  cannot  make  return  to  those 
from  whom  those  gifts  were  received.  It  is  not  in  our 
power  to  make  return  to  the  Father  above.  Nor  can 
we  make  return  to  those  who  have  sacrificed  so  much 
for  our  advancement.  The  child  can  never  make  full 
return  to  the  mother  whose  life  trembled  in  the  balance 
at  its  birth,  and  whose  kindness  and  care  guarded  it 
in  all  the  years  of  infancy.  The  student  cannot  make 
full  return  to  the  teacher  who  awakened  the  mind  and 
aroused  an  ambition  for  a  broader  intellectual  life.  The 
adult  cannot  make  full  return  to  the  patriarch  whose 
noble  life  gave  inspiration  and  incentive.  So  a  genera- 
tion cannot  make  return  to  the  generation  gone ;  it  must 


4  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

make  its  return  to  the  generations  to  come.  Our  nation 
must  discharge  its  debt  not  to  the  dead,  but  to  the 
living.  How  can  our  country  discharge  this  great  debt? 
In  but  one  way,  and  that  is  by  giving  to  the  world 
something  equal  in  value  to  that  which  it  has  received 
from  the  world.  And  what  is  the  greatest  gift  that 
man  can  bestow  upon  man?  Feed  a  man  and  he  will 
hunger  again;  give  him  clothing  and  his  clothing  will 
wear  out,  but  give  him  a  noble  ideal  and  that  ideal 
will  be  with  him  through  every  waking  hour,  lifting 
him  to  a  higher  plane  of  life,  and  giving  him  a  broader 
conception  of  his  relations  to  his  fellows. 

I  know,  therefore,  of  no  greater  service  that  my 
country  can  render  to  the  world  than  to  furnish  to  the 
world  the  highest  ideal  that  the  world  has  known.  That 
ideal  must  be  so  far  above  us  that  it  will  keep  us  looking 
upward  all  our  lives,  and  so  far  in  advance  of  us  that 
we  shall  never  overtake  it.  I  know  of  no  better  illustra- 
tion of  an  ideal  life  than  the  living  spring,  pouring  forth 
constantly  of  that  which  refreshes  and  invigorates — no 
better  illustration  of  a  worthless  life  than  the  stagnant 
pool  which  receives  contribution  from  all  the  land  around 
and  around  and  gives  forth  nothing.  Our  nation  must 
make  a  large  contribution  to  the  welfare  of  the  world, 
and  it  is  no  reflection  upon  those  who  have  gone  before 
to  say  that  we  ought  to  do  better  than  they  have  done. 
We  would  not  meet  the  responsibilities  of  to-day  if  we 
did  not  build  still  higher  the  social  structure  to  which 
they  devoted  their  lives. 

I  visited  the  Tower  of  London  and  saw  upon  the 
wall  a  strange  figure.  It  was  made  of  swords,  ramrods, 
and  bayonets,  and  was  fashioned  into  the  form  of  a 
flower.  Someone  had  put  a  card  on  it  and  aptly  named 
it  the  passion  flower — and  it  has  been  too  often  the 
international  flower.  But  the  world  has  made  progress. 
No  longer  do  ambition  and  avarice  furnish  a  sufficient 
excuse  for  war.  The  world  has  made  progress,  and 
to-day  you  cannot  justify  bloodshed  except  in  defence 
of  a  right  already  ascertained,  and  then  only  when  all 
peaceable  means  have  been  exhausted.  The  world  has 
made  progress.    We  .have  reached  a  point  where  we  re- 


INTRODUCTION  5 

spect  not  the  man  who  will  die  to  secure  some  pecuniary 
advantages,  but  the  man  who  will  die  in  defence  of  his 
rights.  We  admire  the  courage  of  the  man  who  is 
willing  to  die  in  defence  of  his  rights,  but  there  is  yet 
before  us  a  higher  ground.  Is  he  great  who  will  die 
in  defence  of  his  rights?  There  is  yet  to  come  the 
greater  man — the  man  who  will  die  rather  than  trespass 
upon  the  rights  of  another.  Hail  to  the  nation  what- 
ever its  name  may  be  that  leads  the  world  toward  the 
realization  of  this  higher  ideal.  I  am  glad  that  we  now 
recognize  that  there  is  something  more  powerful  than 
physical  force.  No  one  has  stated  this  better  than  Car- 
lyle.  He  said  that  thought  was  stronger  than  artillery 
parks,  and  at  last  molded  the  world  like  soft  clay; 
that  behind  thought  was  love,  and  that  there  never  was 
a  wise  head  that  had  not  behind  it  a  generous  heart. 

The  world  is  coming  to  understand  that  armies  and 
navies,  however  numerous  and  strong,  are  impotent  to 
stop  thought.  Thought  inspired  by  love  will  yet  rule 
the  world.  I  am  glad  that  there  is  a  national  product 
more  valuable  than  gold  or  silver,  more  valuable  than 
cotton  or  wheat  or  corn  or  iron — an  ideal.  That  is  a 
merchandise — if  I  may  call  it  such — that  moves  freely 
from  country  to  country.  You  cannot  vex  it  with  an 
export  tax  or  hinder  it  with  an  import  tariff.  It  is 
greater  than  legislators,  and  rises  triumphant  over  the 
machinery  of  government.  In  the  rivalry  to  present  the 
best  ideal  to  the  world,  love,  not  hatred,  will  control; 
and  I  am  glad  that  I  can  return  thanks  for  what  my 
country  has  received,  thanks  for  the  progress  that  the 
world  has  made,  and  that  I  can  contemplate  with  joy  the 
coming  of  that  day  when  rivalry  between  nations  will 
be,  not  to  see  which  can  injure  the  other  most,  but  to 
show  which  can  hold  highest  the  light  that  guides  the 
footsteps  of  the  human  race  to  higher  ground. 


7k$r&^<^ 


CHAPTER  I 
The  Fkench  Alliance 

Franco-British  War — Opposing  Views  in  Washington's  Cabinet  as  to  Proper 
Eelations  with  France — Washington  Issues  Proclamation  of  Neutrality: 
Controversy  Between  "Pacificus"  [Alexander  Hamilton]  and  "Hel- 
vidius"  [James  Madison]  as  to  Whether  the  President  Encroached  on 
the  Powers  of  Congress. 

THE  essential  object  of  the  French- American  treaty 
of  1778  was  "to  maintain  the  liberty,  sovereignty, 
and  independence  of  the  United  States  as  well 
in  matters  of  government  as  of  commerce."  In  the 
event  of  conquest  Canada  and  Bermuda  were  to  belong 
to  the  United  States,  and  the  West  Indies  to  France. 
Each  party  was  to  fulfill  its  part  of  the  treaty  according 
to  its  own  power  and  circumstances,  and  no  after-claim 
of  compensation  was  to  be  made  on  either  side,  whatever 
be  the  cost  of  the  war. 

As  a  result  of  this  treaty  events  occurred  in  1793 
which  inflamed  partisanship  to  a  degree  hitherto  not 
attained  in  the  politics  of  America. 

War  had  broken  out  between  the  new  republic  of 
France  and  Great  Britain  and  Holland,  and  the  Ameri- 
can people  in  general  were  eager  to  support  their 
former  ally  and  present  sister  republic.  Indeed,  many 
individuals  were  ready  to  engage  in  privateering  against 
the  commerce  of  the  enemies  of  France,  regardless  of 
consequences  to  the  United  States. 

President  Washington,  however,  from  his  high  sta- 
tion, was  called  upon  to  view  these  great  events  as  they 
might  affect  his  own  country,  and  he  felt  himself  bound 
to  consult  the  dictates  of  his  judgment  rather  than  the 
impulse  of  his  feelings.  He  foresaw  that  the  storm 
which  was  gathering  in  Europe  must  soon  reach  the 
United  States,  and  he  was  satisfied  that  the  best  interests 

6 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  7 

of  his  country  dictated  a  state  of  neutrality,  which,  he 
was  convinced,  might  be  maintained  without  violation 
of  national  faith.  Aware  of  the  importance  and  delicacy 
of  the  crisis,  he  assembled  his  Cabinet  in  April  for  their 
advice.  To  them  he  submitted  certain  questions  with 
respect  to  the  existing  and  prospective  relations  with 
France. 

The  Pkesident's  Questions 

1.  Shall  a  proclamation  issue  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
interference  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  the  war 
between  France  and  Great  Britain,  etc.?  Shall  it  contain  a 
declaration  of  neutrality  or  not?    What  shall  it  contain? 

2.  Shall  a  minister  from  the  republic  of  France  be  received  ? 

3.  If  received,  shall  it  be  absolutely  or  with  qualifications; 
and,  if  with  qualifications,  of  what  kind  ? 

4.  Are  the  United  States  obliged  by  good  faith  to  consider 
the  treaties  heretofore  made  with  France  as  applying  to  the 
present  situation  of  the  parties?  may  they  either  renounce  them 
or  hold  them  suspended  until  the  government  of  France  shall 
be  established? 

5.  If  they  have  the  right,  is  it  expedient  to  do  either?  and 
which  ? 

6.  If  they  have  an  option,  would  it  be  a  breach  of  neutrality 
to  consider  the  treaties  in  operation? 

7.  If  the  treaties  are  to  be  considered  as  now  in  operation, 
is  the  guaranty  in  the  treaty  of  alliance  applicable  to  a  defensive 
war  only,  or  to  a  war,  either  offensive  or  defensive  ? 

8.  Does  the  war  in  which  France  is  engaged  appear  to  be  of- 
fensive or  defensive  on  her  part?  or  of  a  mixed  and  equivocal 
character  ? 

9.  If  of  a  mixed  and  equivocal  character,  does  the  guaranty 
in  any  event  apply  to  such  a  war? 

10.  "What  is  the  effect  of  a  guaranty,  such  as  that  to  be 
found  in  the  treaty  of  alliance  between  the  United  States  and 
France  ? 

11.  Does  any  article  in  either  of  the  treaties  prevent  ships 
of  war,  other  than  privateers,  of  the  powers  opposed  to  France, 
from  coming  into  the  ports  of  the  United  States  to  act  as  con- 
voys to  their  own  merchantmen?  or  does  it  lay  any  other  re- 
straints upon  them  more  than  would  apply  to  the  ships  of  war 
of  France? 

12.  Should  the  future  regent  of  France  send  a  minister  to 
the  United  States,  ought  he  to  be  received  ? 


8  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

13.  Is  it  necessary  or  advisable  to  call  together  the  two 
.Houses  of  Congress  with  a  view  to  the  present  posture  of  Euro- 
pean affairs?  if  it  is,  what  should  be  the  particular  objects  of 
such  call? 

These  questions  were  of  course  communicated  con- 
fidentially, but  they  afterwards  clandestinely  found  their 
way  to  the  public. 

The  answers  of  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  to  these 
questions  were  requested  in  writing.  On  some  of  them 
the  opinions  of  the  members  were  unanimous ;  on  others 
a  difference  prevailed.  All  were  in  favor  of  issuing  a 
proclamation  of  neutrality,  of  receiving  a  minister  from 
the  existing  French  Government,  and  against  convening 
Congress.  Some  of  the  Cabinet,  however,  were  for  re- 
ceiving the  minister  with  some  degree  of  qualification, 
from  a  doubt  whether  the  government  of  France  could 
be  considered  as  finally  settled  by  the  deliberate  sense 
of  the  nation.  The  President,  however,  concluded  to  re- 
ceive him  in  an  unqualified  manner.  As  to  the  clause 
of  guaranty  in  the  treaty  of  1778  a  difference  of  opinion 
also  existed  in  the  Cabinet.  The  Secretaries  of  the 
Treasury  [Alexander  Hamilton]  and  of  War  [Henry 
Knox]  considered  the  cause  as  applicable  only  to  a 
defensive  war,  and  therefore  not  binding  in  a  contest 
commenced  by  France  herself,  while  the  Secretary  of 
State  [Thomas  Jefferson]  and  the  Attorney-General 
[Edmund  Randolph]  thought  it  unnecessary  at  that  time 
to  decide  the  question.  This  divergence  of  views  among 
the  members  of  the  Cabinet  served  to  increase  the  divi- 
sions already  existing  among  the  people. 

A  proclamation  was  issued  by  the  President  on  the 
22nd  of  April,  declaring  it  to  be  the  duty  and  interest 
of  the  United  States  to  pursue  a  conduct  friendly  and 
impartial  toward  the  belligerent  powers  of  Europe,  and 
that  it  was  their  disposition  to  observe  such  conduct, 
warning  the  citizens  to  avoid  all  acts  tending  to  con- 
travene such  a  disposition,  and  declaring  that  those  who 
might  render  themselves  liable  to  punishment  by  com- 
mitting, aiding,  or  abetting  hostilities  against  any  of 
the  belligerents,  or  by  carrying  contraband  of  war, 
would  not  receive  the  protection  of  the  United  States. 


THE    FRENCH   ALLIANCE  9 

"Pacificus"  (Hamilton)  vs.  * ' Helvidius ' '  (Madison) 

On  the  President's  Proclamation  op  Neutrality 

The  proclamation  created  a  heated  debate  in  the 
press  of  the  country.  Alexander  Hamilton  wrote  a 
series  of  articles  in  defence  of  the  proclamation  signed 
"Pacificus,"  which  were  replied  to  by  James  Madison 
in  a  series  signed  ' i  Helvidius. ' ' 

ARGUMENT  OF  HAMILTON 


Hamilton  first  stated  the  objections  to  the  proclama- 
tion : 

1.  That  the  proclamation  was  without  authority. 

2.  That  it  was  contrary  to  our  treaties  with  France. 

3.  That  it  was  contrary  to  the  gratitude  which  is 
due  from  this  to  that  country  for  the  succors  afforded 
to  us  in  our  own  revolution. 

4.  That  it  was  out  of  time  and  unnecessary. 

Preliminary  to  answering  the  first  objection,  Hamil- 
ton stated  the  nature  and  design  of  a  proclamation  of 
neutrality.  This,  he  said,  was  to  announce  to  the 
belligerent  powers  that  the  country  was  at  peace  with 
both  belligerents  and  without  treaty  obligations  to  be- 
come an  associate  in  the  war  with  either  party,  and 
therefore  that  it  would  remain  strictly  neutral,  and  to 
warn  the  citizens  of  the  country  where  the  proclama- 
tion issued  to  abstain  from  acts  violating  this  neutrality 
under  penalty  of  punishment  by  the  law  of  the  land  of 
which  the  "law  of  nations' '  (jus  gentium)  is  a  part. 
Such  a  proclamation  to  the.  citizens  is  necessary  to 
relieve  the  nation  from  responsibility  for  these  acts 
(Vattel,  Book  III,  Chapter  7,  Section  113). 

The  first  question  was:  Had  the  executive  depart- 
ment a  constitutional  right  to  make  this  proclamation? 

Hamilton  affirmed  that  it  had,  the  Constitution  desig- 
nating it  as  the  treaty-making,  and,  under  the  general 
power  of  executing  all  laws,  the  treaty-executing  power. 
He  said  that  there  were  two  and  only  two  exceptions  to 


10  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  executive  powers  of  the  President  as  laid  down  in 
the  Constitution:  the  Senate  must  cooperate  with  the 
President  in  treaty-making,  and  declarations  of  war 
and  grants  of  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  must  be 
made  by  Congress.  A  declaration  of  neutrality,  he 
argued,  did  not,  however,  fall  under  either  of  these  ex- 
ceptions. It  is  the  duty  of  the  President  to  preserve 
peace  until  war  is  declared,  and  to  exercise  this  duty  he 
must  necessarily  construe  treaty  obligations. 

Those  who  object  to  the  proclamation  will  readily  admit  that 
it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  executive  to  interpret  those  articles 
of  our  treaties  which  give  to  France  particular  privileges,  in 
order  to  the  enforcement  of  them :  but  the  necessary  consequence 
of  this  is  that  the  executive  must  judge  what  are  their  proper 
limits;  what  rights  are  given  to  other  nations  by  our  contracts 
with  them ;  what  rights  the  law  of  nature  and  nations  gives  and 
our  treaties  permit,  in  respect  to  those  countries  with  which  we 
have  none ;  in  fine,  what  are  the  reciprocal  rights  and  obligations 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  all  and  each  of  the  powers  at  war. 

In  the  case  of  Prance,  if  there  had  been  a  treaty  of  alliance, 
offensive  and  defensive,  between  the  United  States  and  that  coun- 
try, the  unqualified  acknowledgment  of  the  new  government 
would  have  put  the  United  States  in  a  condition  to  become  an 
associate  in  the  war  with  France,  and  would  have  laid  the  legis- 
lature under  an  obligation,  if  required,  and  there  was  otherwise 
no  valid  excuse,  of  exercising  its  power  of  declaring  war. 

This  serves  as  an  example  of  the  right  of  the  executive,  in 
certain  cases,  to  determine  the  condition  of  the  nation,  though 
it  may,  in  its  consequences,  affect  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
the  legislature  to  declare  war.  Nevertheless,  the  executive  can- 
not thereby  control  the  exercise  of  that  power.  The  legislature 
is  still  free  to  perform  its  duties,  according  to  its  own  sense  of 
them;  though  the  executive,  in  the  exercise  of  its  constitutional 
powers,  may  establish  an  antecedent  state  of  things,  which  ought 
to  weigh  in  the  legislative  decisions. 

The  division  of  the  executive  power  in  the  Constitution  cre- 
ates a  concurrent  authority  in  the  cases  to  which  it  relates. 

Hence  treaties  can  be  made  only  by  the  President  and  Senate 
jointly;  but  their  activity  may  be  continued  or  suspended  by 
the  President  alone. 

No  objection  has  been  made  to  the  President's  having  ac- 
knowledged the  republic  of  France  by  the  reception  of  its  min- 
ister without  having  consulted  the  Senate;  though  that  body  is 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  11 

connected  with  him  in  the  making  of  treaties,  and  though  the 
consequence  of  his  act  of  reception  is  to  give  operation  to  those 
heretofore  made  with  that  country.  But  he  is  censured  for  hav- 
ing declared  the  United  States  to  be  in  a  state  of  peace  and 
neutrality,  with  regard  to  the  powers  at  war;  because  the  right 
of  changing  that  state,  and  declaring  war,  belongs  to  the  legisla- 
ture. 

It  deserves  to  be  remarked  that,  as  the  participation  of  the 
Senate  in  the  making  of  treaties  and  the  power  of  the  legislature 
to  declare  war  are  exceptions  out  of  the  general  "  executive 
power ' '  vested  in  the  President,  they  are  to  be  construed  strictly, 
and  ought  to  be  extended  no  further  than  is  essential  to  their 
execution. 

While,  therefore,  the  legislature  can  alone  declare  war,  can 
alone  actually  transfer  the  nation  from  a  state  of  peace  to  a  state 
of  hostility,  it  belongs  to  the  "executive  power' '  to  do  whatever 
else  the  law  of  nations,  cooperating  with  the  treaties  of  the  coun- 
try, enjoins  in  the  intercourse  of  the  United  States  with  foreign 
powers. 

In  order  to  the  observance  of  that  conduct  which  the  laws  of 
nations,  combined  with  our  treaties,  prescribed  to  this  country,  in 
reference  to  the  present  war  in  Europe,  it  was  necessary  for  the 
President  to  judge  for  himself  whether  there  was  anything  in  our 
treaties  incompatible  with  an  adherence  to  neutrality.  Having 
decided  that  there  was  not,  he  had  a  right,  and,  if  in  his  opinion 
the  interest  of  the  nation  required  it,  it  was  his  duty,  as  executor 
of  the  laws,  to  proclaim  the  neutrality  of  the  nation,  to  exhort 
all  persons  to  observe  it,  and  to  warn  them  of  the  penalties  which 
would  attend  its  non-observance. 

The  proclamation  has  been  represented  as  enacting  some  new 
law.  This  is  a  view  of  it  entirely  erroneous.  It  only  proclaims  a 
fact,  with  regard  to  the  existing  state  of  the  nation ;  informs  the 
citizens  of  what  the  laws  previously  established  require  of  them 
in  that  state,  and  notifies  them  that  these  laws  will  be  put  in 
execution  against  the  infractors  of  them. 


The  second  and  principal  objection  to  the  proclamation, 
namely,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  treaties  between  the 
United  States  and  France,  will  now  be  examined. 

Referring  to  Vattel,  Book  III,  Chapter  6,  Section 
101,  Hamilton  said  that  those  treaty  obligations  with 


12  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

a  nation  made  prior  to  the  existing  quarrel  between  that 
nation  and  a  third  nation  could  be  fulfilled  without  vio- 
lating the  law  of  neutrality,  even  though  these  were  to 
furnish  determinate  succors  of  ships  or  troops  in  case 
of  war,  but  that  succors  not  stipulated  in  the  treaty 
would  be  such  a  violation. 

He  conceded  that  execution  of  the  clause  of  guaranty 
in  the  eleventh  article  of  our  treaty  with  France  would 
engage  us  with  our  whole  force  as  an  auxiliary  of  France 
in  the  present  war. 

It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  examine  whether  the 
United  States  would  have  a  valid  justification  for  not  complying 
with  it  in  case  of  their  being  called  upon  for  that  purpose  by 
France. 

The  alliance  between  the  United  States  and  France  is  of  the 
defensive  kind.  The  words  of  that  article  are  as  follows :  * '  The 
essential  and  direct  end  of  the  present  defensive  alliance  is  to 
maintain  effectually  the  liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence, 
absolute  and  unlimited,  of  the  United  States,  as  well  in  matters 
of  government  as  of  commerce." 

The  leading  character  then  of  our  alliance  with  France  being 
defensive,  it  will  follow  that  the  meaning,  obligation,  and  force 
of  every  stipulation  in  the  treaty  must  be  tested  by  the  principles 
of  such  an  alliance ;  unless  in  any  instance  terms  have  been  used 
which  clearly  and  unequivocally  denoted  a  different  intent. 

The  principal  question  consequently  is:  what  is  the  nature 
and  effect  of  a  defensive  alliance  ?  "When  does  the  casus  foederis 
(state  of  alliance)  take  place  in  relation  to  it? 

Reason,  the  concurring  opinions  of  writers,  and  the  practice 
of  nations  will  all  answer:  "When  either  of  the  allies  is  at- 
tacked, when  war  is  made  upon  him,  not  when  he  makes  war 
upon  another:"  in  other  words,  the  stipulated  assistance  is  to  be 
given  "when  our  ally  is  engaged  in  a  defensive,  not  when  he  is 
engaged  in  an  offensive  war.  ■ '  This  obligation  to  assist  only  in 
a  defensive  war  constitutes  the  essential  difference  between  an 
alliance  which  is  merely  defensive,  and  one  which  is  both  offen- 
sive and  defensive.  In  the  latter  case  there  is  an  obligation  to 
cooperate  as  well  when  the  war,  on  the  part  of  our  ally,  is  of  the 
latter  as  when  it  is  of  the  former  description.  To  affirm,  there- 
fore, that  the  United  States  are  bound  to  assist  France  in  the  war 
in  which  she  is  at  present  engaged  will  be  to  convert  our  treaty 
with  her  into  an  alliance  offensive  and  defensive,  contrary  to  the 
express  declaration  of  the  instrument  itself. 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  13 

Now  the  war  in  question  is  an  offensive  war  on  the  part  of 
France,  in  that  she  first  declared  and  began  the  war. 

Upon  this  point  there  is  apt  to  be  some  incorrectness  of  ideas. 
Those  who  have  not  examined  subjects  of  such  a  nature  are  led 
to  imagine  that  the  party  which  commits  the  first  injury,  or  gives 
the  first  provocations,  is  on  the  offensive  side,  though  hostilities 
are  actually  begun  by  the  other  party. 

But  the  cause  or  the  occasion  of  the  war,  and  the  war  itself, 
are  things  entirely  distinct.  It  is  the  commencement  of  the  war 
itself  which  decides  the  question  whether  it  be  offensive  or  de- 
fensive. All  writers  on  the  laws  of  nations  agree  in  this  doc- 
trine; but  it  is  most  accurately  laid  down  in  the  following  ex- 
tracts from  Burlemaqui  (Vol.  II,  Book  IV,  Chap.  Ill,  Sees. 
4,  5): 

"Neither  are  we  to  believe  (says  he)  that  he  who  first  injures 
another  begins  by  that  an  offensive  war,  and  that  the  other  who 
demands  the  satisfaction  for  the  injury  received  is  always  on  the 
defensive.  There  are  a  great  many  unjust  acts  which  may  kindle 
a  war,  and  which,  however,  are  not  the  war  itself. ' ' 

We  must  therefore  affirm,  in  general,  that  the  first  who  takes 
up  arms,  whether  justly  or  unjustly,  commences  an  offensive 
war;  and  he  who  opposes  him,  whether  with  or  without  reason, 
begins  a  defensive  war. 

France,  then,  being  on  the  offensive  in  the  present  war,  and 
our  alliance  with  her  being  defensive  only,  it  follows  that  the 
casus  foederis,  or  condition  of  our  guaranty,  cannot  take  place ; 
and  that  the  United  States  are  free  to  refuse  a  performance  of 
that  guaranty,  if  demanded. 

m 

A  third  objection  to  the  proclamation  is  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  gratitude  due  to  France  for  the  services  rendered  to  us 
in  our  revolution. 

Those  who  make  this  objection  disavow,  at  the  same  time,  all 
intention  to  maintain  the  position  that  the  United  States  ought 
to  take  part  in  the  war.  They  profess  to  be  friends  to  our  re- 
maining at  peace.    What,  then,  do  they  mean  by  the  objection? 

If  it  be  no  breach  of  gratitude  to  refrain  from  joining  France 
in  the  war,  how  can  it  be  a  breach  of  gratitude  to  declare  that 
such  is  our  disposition  and  intention  ? 

Faith  and  justice  between  nations  are  virtues  of  a  nature  the 
most  necessary  and  sacred.  They  cannot  be  too  strongly  incul- 
cated, nor  too  highly  respected.  Their  obligations  are  absolute, 
their  utility  unquestionable;  they  relate  to  objects  which,  with 


14  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

probity  and  sincerity,  generally  admit  of  being  brought  within 
clear  and  intelligible  rules. 

But  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  gratitude.  It  is  not  very  often 
that  between  nations  it  can  be  pronounced  with  certainty  that 
there  exists  a  solid  foundation  for  the  sentiment ;  and  how  far  it 
can  justifiably  be  permitted  to  operate  is  always  a  question  of 
still  greater  difficulty. 

The  basis  of  gratitude  is  a  benefit  received  or  intended,  which 
there  was  no  right  to  claim,  originating  in  a  regard  to  the  inter- 
est or  advantage  of  the  party  on  whom  the  benefit  is,  or  is  meant 
to  be,  conferred.  If  a  service  is  rendered  from  views  relative  to 
the  immediate  interest  of  the  party  who  performs  it,  and  is  pro- 
ductive of  reciprocal  advantages,  there  seems  scarcely  in  such  a 
case  to  be  an  adequate  basis  for  a  sentiment  like  that  of  grati- 
tude. The  effect  at  least  would  be  wholly  disproportioned  to  the 
cause  if  such  a  service  ought  to  beget  more  than  a  disposition  to 
render  in  turn  a  correspondent  good  office,  founded  on  mutual 
interest  and  reciprocal  advantage.  But  gratitude  would  require 
much  more  than  this;  it  would  exact  to  a  certain  extent  even  a 
sacrifice  of  the  interest  of  the  party  obliged  to  the  service  or 
benefit  of  the  one  by  whom  the  obligation  had  been  conferred. 

Between  individuals  acts  of  gratitude  not  unfrequently 
occur.  But  among  nations  they  perhaps  never  occur.  It  may 
be  affirmed,  as  a  general  principle,  that  the  predominant  motive 
of  good  offices  from  one  nation  to  another  is  the  interest  or  ad- 
vantage of  the  nation  which  performs  them. 

Indeed,  the  rule  of  morality  in  this  respect  is  not  precisely 
the  same  between  nations  as  between  individuals.  The  duty  of 
making  its  own  welfare  the  guide  of  its  actions  is  much  stronger 
upon  the  former  than  upon  the  latter;  in  proportion  to  the 
greater  magnitude  and  importance  of  national  compared  with 
individual  happiness,  and  to  the  greater  permanency  of  the  effect 
of  national  than  of  individual  conduct.  Existing  millions,  and 
for  the  most  part  future  generations,  are  concerned  in  the  pres- 
ent measures  of  a  government;  while  the  consequences  of  the 
private  actions  of  an  individual  ordinarily  terminate  with  him- 
self or  are  circumscribed  within  a  narrow  compass.  Rulers  are 
only  trustees  for  the  happiness  and  interest  of  their  nation,  and 
cannot,  consistently  with  their  trust,  follow  the  suggestions  of 
kindness  or  humanity  toward  others  to  the  prejudice  of  their 
constituents. 

It  is  not  here  meant  to  recommend  a  policy  absolutely  selfish 
in  nations ;  but  to  show  that  a  policy  regulated  by  their  own  in- 
terest, as  far  as  justice  and  good  faith  permit,  is  and  ought  to  be 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  15 

their  prevailing  one ;  and  that  either  to  ascribe  to  them  a  differ- 
ent principle  of  action  or  to  deduce,  from  the  supposition  of  it, 
arguments  for  a  self-denying  and  self-sacrificing  gratitude  on 
the  part  of  a  nation,  which  may  have  received  from  another  good 
offices,  is  to  misrepresent  or  misconceive  what  usually  are,  and 
ought  to  be,  the  springs  of  national  conduct. 

Mr.  Hamilton  then  examined  the  case  of  France's 
aid  to  the  United  States  to  see  if  it  was  disinterested, 
and  therefore  calling  for  gratitude  on  our  part. 

The  dismemberment  of  this  country  from  Great  Britain  was 
an  obvious  and  a  very  important  interest  of  France.  It  cannot 
be  doubted  that  it  was  both  the  determining  motive  and  an  ade- 
quate compensation  for  the  assistance  afforded  to  us. 

The  inference  from  these  facts  is  not  obscure.  Aid  and  co- 
operation, founded  upon  a  great  interest,  pursued  and  obtained 
by  a  party  rendering  them,  is  not  a  proper  stock  upon  which  to 
engraft  that  enthusiastic  gratitude  which  is  claimed  from  us  by 
those  who  love  France  more  than  the  United  States. 

This  view  of  the  subject,  extorted  by  the  extravagancy  of 
such  a  claim,  is  not  meant  to  disparage  the  just  pretensions  of 
France  to  our  good- will  and  acknowledgment  of  the  favor. 

But  these  sentiments  are  satisfied  on  the  part  of  our  nation 
when  they  produce  a  cordial  disposition  to  render  all  good  and 
friendly  offices  which  can  be  rendered  without  prejudice  to  its 
own  solid  and  permanent  interests. 

To  ask  of  a  nation  so  situated  as  we  are  to  make  a  sacrifice 
of  substantial  interest;  to  expose  itself  to  the  jealousy,  ill-will, 
or  resentment  of  the  rest  of  the  world ;  to  hazard,  in  an  eminent 
degree,  its  own  safety,  would  be  to  ask  more  than  the  nature  of 
the  case  demands,  more  than  the  fundamental  maxims  of  society 
authorize,  more  than  the  dictates  of  sound  reason  justify. 

A  question  has  arisen  with  regard  to  the  proper  object  of  that 
gratitude  which  is  so  much  insisted  upon :  whether  it  be  the  un- 
fortunate prince  by  whom  the  assistance  received  was  given ;  or 
the  nation  of  whom  he  was  the  chief  or  the  organ?  It  is  ex- 
tremely interesting  to  the  national  justice  to  form  right  concep- 
tions on  this  point. 

The  arguments  which  support  the  latter  idea  are  as  follows : 

"Louis  XVI  was  but  the  constitutional  agent  of  the 
French  people.  He  acted  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  nation ;  it  was 
with  their  money  and  their  blood  he  supported  our  cause.  It  is 
to  them,  therefore,  not  to  him,  that  our  obligations  are  due. 


16  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Louis  XVI,  in  taking  our  part,  was  no  doubt  actuated  by 
state  policy.  An  absolute  prince  could  not  love  liberty.  But  the 
people  of  France  patronized  our  cause  with  zeal,  from  sympathy 
in  its  object.  The  people,  therefore,  not  its  monarch,  are  entitled 
to  our  sympathy. ■ ' 

This  reasoning  may  be  ingenious;  but  it  is  not  founded  in 
nature  or  fact. 

Louis  XVI,  though  no  more  than  the  constitutional  agent 
of  the  nation,  had  at  the  time  the  sole  power  of  managing  its 
affairs,  the  legal  right  of  directing  its  will  and  its  force.  It  be- 
longed to  him  to  assist  us,  or  not,  without  consulting  the  nation ; 
and  he  did  assist  without  such  consultation.  His  will  alone  was 
active ;  that  of  the  nation  passive.  If  there  was  kindness  in  the 
decision,  demanding  a  return  of  good-will,  it  was  the  kindness  of 
Louis  XVI — his  heart  was  the  depository  of  the  sentiment. 

But  Louis  XVI,  it  is  said,  acted  from  reasons  of  state,  with- 
out regard  to  our  cause ;  while  the  people  of  France  patronized  it 
with  zeal  and  attachment. 

With  regard  to  the  individual  good  wishes  of  the  citizens  of 
France,  as  they  did  not  produce  the  services  rendered  to  us  as  a 
nation,  they  can  be  no  foundation  for  national  gratitude.  They 
can  only  call  for  a  reciprocation  of  individual  good  wishes.  They 
cannot  form  the  basis  of  public  obligation. 

Our  cause  had  also  numerous  friends  in  other  countries ;  even 
in  that  with  which  we  were  at  war.  Conducted  with  prudence, 
moderation,  justice,  and  humanity,  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  a 
popular  cause  among  mankind,  conciliating  the  countenance  of 
princes  and  the  affection  of  nations. 

The  dispositions  of  the  individual  citizens  of  France  can 
therefore  in  no  sense  be  urged  as  constituting  a  peculiar  claim 
to  our  gratitude.  As  far  as  there  is  foundation  for  it  it  must  be 
referred  to  the  services  rendered  to  us ;  and,  in  the  first  instance, 
to  the  unfortunate  monarch  that  rendered  them.  This  is  the 
conclusion  of  nature  and  reason. 

IV 

The  remaining  objection  to  the  proclamation  of  neutrality  is 
that  it  was  out  of  time  and  unnecessary. 

To  give  color  to  this  objection  it  is  asked,  why  did  not  the 
proclamation  appear  when  the  war  commenced  with  Austria  and 
Prussia?  Why  was  it  forborne  till  Great  Britain,  Holland,  and 
Spain  became  engaged  1  Why  did  not  the  Government  wait  till 
the  arrival  at  Philadelphia  of  the  minister  of  the  French  repub- 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  17 

lie?  Why  did  it  volunteer  a  declaration  not  required  of  it  by 
any  of  the  belligerent  parties? 

Austria  and  Prussia  are  not  maritime  powers.  Contraven- 
tions of  neutrality  as  against  them  were  not  likely  to  take  place 
to  any  extent,  or  in  a  shape  that  would  attract  their  notice.  It 
would  therefore  have  been  useless,  if  not  ridiculous,  to  have 
made  a  formal  declaration  on  the  subject  while  they  were  the 
only  parties  opposed  to  France. 

But  the  reverse  of  this  is  the  case  with  regard  to  Spain,  Hol- 
land, and  England.  These  are  all  commercial  and  maritime  na- 
tions. It  was  to  be  expected  that  their  attentions  would  be  im- 
mediately drawn  toward  the  United  States  with  sensibility,  and 
even  with  jealousy.  It  was  to  be  feared  that  some  of  our  citizens 
might  be  tempted  by  the  prospect  of  gain  to  go  into  measures 
which  would  injure  them  and  hazard  the  peace  of  the  country. 
Attacks  by  some  of  these  powers  upon  the  possessions  of  France 
in  America  were  to  be  looked  for  as  a  matter  of  course.  While 
the  views  of  the  United  States,  as  to  that  particular,  were  proble- 
matical, they  would  naturally  consider  us  as  a  power  that  might 
become  their  enemy.  This  they  would  have  been  the  more  apt  to 
do  on  account  of  those  public  demonstrations  of  attachment  to 
the  cause  of  France  of  which  there  has  been  so  prodigal  a  dis- 
play. 

It  was  therefore  of  great  importance  that  our  own  citizens 
should  understand  as  soon  as  possible  the  opinions  which  the 
Government  entertained  of  the  nature  of  our  relations  to  the 
warring  parties,  and  of  the  propriety  or  expediency  of  our  tak- 
ing a  side  or  remaining  neuter.  The  arrangements  of  our  mer- 
chants could  not  but  be  very  differently  affected  by  the  one 
hypothesis  or  the  other ;  and  it  would  necessarily  have  been  very 
detrimental  and  perplexing  to  them  to  have  been  left  in  uncer- 
tainty. 

The  idea  of  its  having  been  incumbent  on  the  Government  to 
delay  the  measure  for  the  arrival  of  the  minister  of  the  French 
republic  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  humiliating.  Did  the  executive 
stand  in  need  of  the  logic  of  a  foreign  agent  to  enlighten  it  as 
to  the  duties  or  interests  of  the  nation  ?  Or  was  it  bound  to  ask 
his  consent  to  a  step  which  appeared  to  itself  consistent  with  the 
former  and  conducive  to  the  latter? 

The  sense  of  our  treaties  was  to  be  learned  from  the  instru- 
ments themselves.  It  was  not  difficult  to  pronounce  beforehand 
that  we  had  a  greater  interest  in  the  preservation  of  peace  than 
in  any  advantages  with  which  France  might  tempt  our  partici- 
pation in  the  war. 


18  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 


There  has  been  an  additional  criticism,  several  times  repeated, 
which  may  deserve  a  moment's  attention.  It  has  been  urged 
that  the  proclamation  ought  to  have  contained  some  reference 
to  our  treaties ;  and  that  the  generality  of  the  promise  to  observe 
a  conduct  friendly  and  impartial  toward  the  belligerent  powers 
ought  to  have  been  qualified  with  expressions  equivalent  to  these, 
"as  far  as  may  consist  with  the  treaties  of  the  United  States.' } 
~The  insertion  of  such  a  clause  would  have  entirely  defeated 


the  object  of  a  proclamation  by  rendering  the  intention  of  the 
Government  equivocal.  That  object  was  to  assure  the  powers  at 
war  and  our  own  citizens  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  executive,  it 
was  consistent  with  the  duty  and  interest  of  the  nation  to  ob- 
serve neutrality,  and  that  it  was  intended  to  pursue  a  conduct 
corresponding  with  that  opinion.  Words  equivalent  to  those 
contended  for  would  have  rendered  the  other  part  of  the  declara- 
tion nugatory,  by  leaving  it  uncertain  whether  the  executive  did 
or  did  not  believe  a  state  of  neutrality  to  be  consistent  with  our 
treaties.  Neither  foreign  powers  nor  our  own  citizens  would 
have  been  able  to  have  drawn  any  conclusion  from  the  proclama- 
tion ;  and  both  would  have  had  a  right  to  consider  it  as  a  mere 
equivocation. 

By  not  inserting  any  such  ambiguous  expressions,  the  procla- 
mation was  susceptible  of  an  intelligible  and  proper  construction. 
While  it  denoted  on  the  other  hand  that,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
executive,  there  was  nothing  in  our  treaties  obliging  us  to  be- 
come a  party  in  the  war;  it  left  it  to  be  expected,  on  the  other, 
that  all  stipulations  compatible  with  neutrality,  according  to  the 
laws  and  usages  of  nations,  would  be  enforced.  It  follows  that 
the  proclamation  was,  in  this  particular,  exactly  what  it  ought 
to  have  been. 

ABGUMENT  OF   MADISON 

Madison  began  his  reply  by  justifying  his  entrance 
into  a  controversy  with  one  who  was  "despised  by  the 
steady  friends' '  of  "our  republican  Government  and 
the  French  Bevolution"  on  the  ground  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  expose  "  Pacificus  's ' p  insidious  presentation  of 
"principles  which  strike  at  the  vitals  of  the  Constitu- 
tion' '  under  color  of  "vindicating  an  important  public 
act  of  a  chief  magistrate  who  enjoys  the  confidence  and 
love  of  his  country." 

For  himself  "Helvidius"   declared  that  he  was  a 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  19 

"  friend  of  the  Constitution, * '  a  lover  of  peace,  and  one 
who  deeply  respected  the  President. 

Madison  then  proceeded  to  attack  the  arguments  of 
1 1  Pacificus. ' ' 

The  basis  of  his  reasoning  is  the  extraordinary  doctrine  that 
the  powers  of  making  war  and  treaties  are  in  their  nature  execu- 
tive; and  therefore  comprehended  in  the  general  grant  of  execu- 
tive power,  where  not  especially  and  strictly  excepted  out  of  the 
grant. 

If  there  be  any  countenance  to  this  position  it  must  be  found 
either,  first,  in  the  writers  of  authority  on  public  law ;  or,  2d,  in 
the  quality  and  operation  of  the  powers  to  make  war  and  treat- 
ies; or,  3d,  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

1.  All  writers  on  international  law,  particularly 
Wolsius,  Burlemaqui,  and  Vattel,  speak  of  the  powers 
to  declare  war,  to  conclude  peace,  and  to  form  alliances 
as  among  the  highest  acts  of  the  sovereignty,  of  which 
the  legislative  power  must  at  least  be  an  integral  and 
preeminent  part. 

2.  The  natural  province  of  the  executive  magistrate  is  to 
execute  laws,  as  that  of  the  legislature  is  to  make  laws.  All  his 
acts,  therefore,  properly  executive,  must  presuppose  the  exis- 
tence of  the  laws  to  be  executed.  A  treaty  is  not  an  execution 
of  laws:  it  does  not  presuppose  the  existence  of  laws.  It  is,  on 
the  contrary,  to  have  itself  the  force  of  a  law,  and  to  be  carried 
into  execution,  like  all  other  laws,  by  the  executive  magistrate. 
To  say,  then,  that  the  power  of  making  treaties,  which  are  confes- 
sedly laws,  belongs  naturally  to  the  department  which  is  to  exe- 
cute laws  is  to  say  that  the  executive  department  naturally 
includes  a  legislative  power.  In  theory  this  is  an  absurdity — in 
practice  a  tyranny. 

The  power  to  declare  war  is  subject  to  similar  reasoning.  A 
declaration  that  there  shall  be  war  is  not  an  execution  of  laws : 
it  does  not  suppose  preexisting  laws  to  be  executed :  it  is  not,  in 
any  respect,  an  act  merely  executive.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  one 
of  the  most  deliberate  acts  that  can  be  performed;  and  when 
performed  has  the  effect  of  repealing  all  the  laws  operating  in  a 
state  of  peace,  so  far  as  they  are  inconsistent  with  a  state  of  war ; 
and  of  enacting,  as  a  rule  for  the  executive,  sl  new  code  adapted 
to  the  relation  between  the  society  and  its  foreign  enemy.  In 
like  manner,  a  conclusion  of  peace  annuls  all  the  laws  peculiar 


20  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

to  a  state  of  war,  and  revives  the  general  laws  incident  to  a  state 
of  peace. 

These  remarks  will  be  strengthened  by  adding  that  treaties, 
particularly  treaties  of  peace,  have  sometimes  the  effect  of  chang- 
ing not  only  the  external  laws  of  the  society,  but  operate  also  on 
the  internal  code,  which  is  purely  municipal,  and  to  which  the 
legislative  authority  of  the  country  is  of  itself  competent  and 
complete. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  must  be  evident  that,  al- 
though the  executive  may  be  a  convenient  organ  of  preliminary 
communications  with  foreign  governments  on  the  subjects  of 
treaty  or  war :  and  the  proper  agent  for  carrying  into  execution 
the  final  determinations  of  the  competent  authority;  yet  it  can 
have  no  pretensions,  from  the  nature  of  the  powers  in  question 
compared  with  the  nature  of  the  executive  trust,  to  that  essential 
agency  which  gives  validity  to  such  determinations. 

It  must  be  further  evident  that,  if  these  powers  be  not  in  their 
nature  purely  legislative,  they  partake  so  much  more  of  that  than 
of  any  other  quality  that,  under  a  constitution  leaving  them  to 
result  to  their  most  natural  department,  the  legislature  would  be 
without  a  rival  in  its  claim. 

Another  important  inference  to  be  noted  is  that,  the  powers 
of  making  war  and  treaty  being  substantially  of  a  legislative,  not 
an  executive,  nature,  the  rule  of  interpreting  exceptions  strictly 
must  narrow,  instead  of  enlarging,  executive  pretensions  on  those 
subjects. 

3.  The  Constitution  does  not  explicitly  give  the  President 
power  to  make  war  and  peace.  On  the  contrary  this  power  is 
expressly  lodged  in  Congress,  and,  since  the  Constitution  was 
framed  with  the  specific  purpose  of  separating  the  three 
branches  of  government,  the  spirit  of  that  instrument,  as  well 
as  the  letter,  is  against  the  use  of  such  power  by  the  executive. 

The  power  of  treaties  is  vested  jointly  in  the  President  and 
in  the  Senate,  which  is  a  branch  of  the  legislature.  From  this 
arrangement  merely,  there  can  be  no  inference  that  would  nec- 
essarily exclude  the  power  from  the  executive  class,  since  the 
Senate  is  joined  with  the  President  in  another  power,  that  of 
appointing  to  offices,  which,  as  far  as  relates  to  executive  offices 
at  least,  is  considered  as  of  an  executive  nature.  Yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  are  sufficient  indications  that  the  power  of 
treaties  is  regarded  by  the  Constitution  as  materially  different 
from  mere  executive  power,  and  as  having  more  affinity  to  the 
legislative  than  to  the  executive  character. 

One  circumstance  indicating  this  is  the  constitutional  regu- 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  21 

lation  under  which  the  Senate  give  their  consent  in  the  case  of 
treaties.  In  all  other  cases  the  consent  of  the  body  is  expressed 
by  a  majority  of  voices.  In  this  particular  case  a  concurrence  of 
two-thirds  at  least  is  made  necessary  as  a  substitute  or  compen- 
sation for  the  other  branch  of  the  national  legislature,  which, 
on  certain  occasions,  could  not  be  conveniently  a  party  to  the 
transaction. 

But  the  conclusive  circumstance  is  that  treaties,  when 
formed  according  to  the  constitutional  mode,  are  confessedly 
to  have  the  force  and  operation  of  laws,  and  are  to  be  a  rule  for 
the  courts  in  controversies  between  man  and  man  as  much  as 
any  other  laws.  They  are  even  emphatically  declared  by  the 
Constitution  to  be  "the  supreme  law  of  the  land." 

So  far  the  argument  from  the  Constitution  is  precisely  in 
opposition  to  the  doctrine.  As  little  will  be  gained  in  its  favor 
from  a  comparison  of  the  two  powers  with  those  particularly 
vested  in  the  President  alone. 

The  President  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  when  called  into 
the  actual  service  of  the  United  States. 

There  can  be  no  relation  worth  examining  between  this 
power  and  the  general  power  of  making  treaties.  And  instead 
of  being  analogous  to  the  power  of  declaring  war  it  affords  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  incompatibility  of  the  two  powers  in 
the  same  hands.  Those  who  are  to  conduct  a  war  cannot,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  be  proper  or  safe  judges,  whether  a  war  ought 
to  be  commenced,  continued  or  concluded.  They  are  barred 
from  the  latter  functions  by  a  great  principle  in  free  govern- 
ment, analogous  to  that  which  separates  the  sword  from  the 
purse,  or  the  power  of  executing  from  the  power  of  enacting 
laws. 

"He  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  shall  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted, and  shall  commission  all  officers  of  the  United  States." 
To  see  the  laws  faithfully  executed  constitutes  the  essence  of 
the  executive  authority.  But  what  relation  has  it  to  the  power 
of  making  treaties  and  war,  that  is,  of  determining  what  the 
laws  shall  be  with  regard  to  other  nations?  No  other  certainly 
than  what  subsists  between  the  powers  of  executing  and  enact- 
ing laws,  no  other  consequently  than  what  forbids  a  coalition 
of  the  powers  in  the  same  department. 

Thus  it  appears  that  by  whatever  standard  we  try  this  doc- 
trine it  must  be  condemned  as  no  less  vicious  in  theory  than  it 
would  be  dangerous  in  practice.  It  is  countenanced  neither  by 
the  writers  on  law,  nor  by  the  nature  of  the  powers  themselves, 


22  GREAT   AMERICAN   DEBATES 

nor  by  any  general  arrangement  or  particular  expressions  or 
plausible  analogies  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution. 

Whence  then  can  the  writer  have  borrowed  it? 

There  is  but  one  answer  to  the  question. 

The  power  of  making  treaties  and  the  power  of  declaring 
war  are  royal  prerogatives  in  the  British  Government,  and  are 
accordingly  treated  as  executive  prerogatives  by  British  com- 
mentators. 

Madison  then  shrewdly  quoted  a  passage  from  one 
of  Hamilton's  letters  in  "The  Federalist' '  (No.  75)  as 
contradictory  of  the  position  taken  by  "  Pacificns. ' '  It 
was  a  "secret  of  Punch' '  who  "Pacificus"  was,  but 
Madison,  using  an  opportunity  which  is  unique  in  the 
annals  of  debate,  assumed  that  "Pacificus"  and  Hamil- 
ton are  different  persons,  and  confuted  the  one  by  the 
other. 

This  number  of  "The  Federalist"  (see  Vol.  I,  page 
401),  expressly  refuted  the  general  idea  that  treaty- 
making  was  an  executive  power,  and  showed  that  it  was 
a  distinct  department  of  government,  the  legislature 
having  part  in  it  because  of  the  operation  of  treaties  as 
laws,  and  the  executive,  because  these  treaties  were  to 
be  enforced. 

"However  true  it  may  be"  (says  "Pacificus")  "that  the 
right  of  the  legislature  to  declare  war  includes  the  right  of  judg- 
ing whether  the  legislature  be  under  obligations  to  make  war  or 
not,  it  will  not  follow  that  the  executive  is  in  any  case  excluded 
from  a  similar  right  of  judging  in  the  execution  of  its  own  func- 
tions. ' ' 

A  material  error  of  the  writer  in  this  application  of  his  doc- 
trine lies  in  his  shrinking  from  its  regular  consequences.  Had 
he  stuck  to  his  principle  in  its  full  extent,  and  reasoned  from  it 
without  restraint,  he  would  only  have  had  to  defend  himself 
against  his  opponents.  By  yielding  the  great  point  that  the  right 
to  declare  war,  though  to  be  taken  strictly,  includes  the  right  to 
judge  whether  the  nation  be  under  obligations  to  make  war  or 
not,  he  is  compelled  to  defend  his  argument  not  only  against 
others,  but  against  himself  also.  Observe  how  he  struggles  in  his 
own  toils. 

He  had  before  admitted  that  the  right  to  declare  war  is  vested 
in  the  legislature.    He  here  admits  that  the  right  to  declare  war 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  23 

includes  the  right  to  judge  whether  the  United  States  be  obliged 
to  declare  war  or  not.  Can  the  inference  be  avoided  that  the 
executive,  instead  of  having  a  similar  right  to  judge,  is  as  much 
excluded  from  the  right  to  judge  as  from  the  right  to  declare  ? 

Whatever  difficulties  may  arise  in  defining  the  executive  au- 
thority in  particular  cases  there  can  be  none  in  deciding  on  an 
authority  clearly  placed  by  the  Constitution  in  another  depart- 
ment. In  this  case  the  Constitution  has  decided  what  shall  not 
be  deemed  an  executive  authority;  though  it  may  not  have 
clearly  decided  in  every  case  what  shall  be  so  deemed.  The  de- 
claring of  war  is  expressly  made  a  legislative  function.  The 
judging  of  the  obligations  to  make  war  is  admitted  to  be  in- 
cluded as  a  legislative  function.  Whenever,  then,  a  question 
occurs  whether  war  shall  be  declared  or  whether  public  stipula- 
tions require  it,  the  question  necessarily  belongs  to  the  depart- 
ment to  which  those  functions  belong — and  no  other  department 
can  be  in  the  execution  of  its  proper  functions  if  it  should  under- 
take to  decide  such  a  question. 

There  can  be  no  refuge  against  this  conclusion,  but  in  the  pre- 
text of  a  concurrent  right  in  both  departments  to  judge  of  the 
obligations  to  declare  war;  and  this  must  be  intended  by  the 
writer  when  he  says,  "It  will  not  follow  that  the  executive  is 
excluded  in  any  case  from  a  similar  right  of  judging, ' '  etc. 

As  this  is  the  ground  on  which  the  ultimate  defence  is  to  be 
made,  and  which  must  either  be  maintained  or  the  works 
erected  on  it  demolished,  it  will  be  proper  to  give  its  strength  a 
fair  trial. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  idea  of  a  concurrent  right  is  at  vari- 
ance with  other  ideas  advanced  or  admitted  by  the  writer.  Lay- 
ing aside,  for  the  present,  that  consideration,  it  seems  impossible 
to  avoid  concluding  that,  if  the  executive,  as  such,  has  a  concur- 
rent right  with  the  legislature  to  judge  of  obligations  to  declare 
war,  and  the  right  to  judge  be  essentially  included  in  the  right 
to  declare,  it  must  have  the  same  concurrent  right  to  declare  as 
it  has  to  judge ;  and,  by  another  analogy,  the  same  right  to  judge 
of  other  causes  of  war  as  of  the  particular  cause  found  in  a  pub- 
lic stipulation.  So  that,  whenever  the  executive,  in  the  course  of 
its  functions,  shall  meet  with  these  cases,  it  must  either  infer  an 
equal  authority  in  all  or  acknowledge  its  want  of  authority  in 
any. 

A  concurrent  authority  in  two  independent  departments,  to 
perform  the  same  function  with  respect  to  the  same  thing,  would 
be  as  awkward  in  practice  as  it  is  unnatural  in  theory. 

If  the  legislature  and  executive  have  both  a  right  to  judge  of 


24  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  obligations  to  make  war  or  not,  it  must  sometimes  happen, 
though  not  at  present,  that  they  will  judge  differently.  The 
executive  may  proceed  to  consider  the  question  to-day ;  may  de- 
termine that  the  United  States  are  not  bound  to  take  part  in  a 
war,  and  in  the  execution  of  its  functions  proclaim  that  deter- 
mination to  all  the  world.  To-morrow  the  legislature  may  fol- 
low in  the  consideration  of  the  same  subject;  may  determine  that 
the  obligations  impose  war  on  the  United  States,  and,  in  the  exe- 
cution of  its  functions,  enter  into  a  constitutional  declaration, 
expressly  contradicting  the  constitutional  proclamation. 

In  what  light  does  this  present  the  Constitution  to  the  people 
who  established  it  ?  In  what  light  would  it  present  to  the  world 
a  nation  thus  speaking,  through  two  different  organs,  equally 
constitutional  and  authentic,  two  opposite  languages,  on  the  same 
subject,  and  under  the  same  existing  circumstances? 

But  it  is  not  with  the  legislative  rights  alone  that  this  doc- 
trine interferes.  The  rights  of  the  judiciary  may  be  equally 
invaded.  For  it  is  clear  that  if  a  right  declared  by  the  Consti- 
tution to  be  legislative,  and  actually  vested  by  it  in  the  legisla- 
ture, leaves,  notwithstanding,  a  similar  right  in  the  executive, 
whenever  a  case  for  exercising  it  occurs,  in  the  course  of  its 
functions;  a  right  declared  to  be  judiciary  and  vested  in  that 
department  may,  on  the  same  principles,  be  assumed  and  exer- 
cised by  the  executive  in  the  course  of  its  functions;  and  it  is 
evident  that  occasions  and  pretexts  for  the  latter  interference 
may  be  as  frequent  as  for  the  former.  So  again  the  judiciary 
department  may  find  equal  occasions  in  the  execution  of  its 
functions  for  usurping  the  authorities  of  the  executive ;  and  the 
legislature  for  stepping  into  the  jurisdiction  of  both.  And  thus 
all  the  powers  of  government,  of  which  a  partition  is  so  carefully 
made  among  the  several  branches,  would  be  thrown  into  absolute 
hatchpot,  and  exposed  to  a  general  scramble. 

It  is  certain  that  a  faithful  execution  of  the  laws  of  neutrality 
may  tend  as  much  in  some  cases  to  incur  war  from  one  quarter 
as  in  others  to  avoid  war  from  other  quarters.  The  executive 
must  nevertheless  execute  the  laws  of  neutrality  while  in  force, 
and  leave  it  to  the  legislature  to  decide  whether  they  ought  to  be 
altered  or  not.  The  executive  has  no  other  discretion  than  to 
convene  and  give  information  to  the  legislature  on  occasions  that 
may  demand  it;  and  while  this  discretion  is  duly  exercised  the 
trust  of  the  executive  is  satisfied,  and  that  department  is  not  re- 
sponsible for  the  consequences.  It  could  not  be  made  responsible 
for  them  without  vesting  it  with  the  legislative  as  well  as  with 
the  executive  trust. 


THE    FRENCH    ALLIANCE  25 

In  reply  to  the  position  of  "Pacificus"  that  the  right 
of  the  President  to  receive  foreign  ministers  implies  the 
right  of  recognizing,  in  the  case  of  a  revolution,  the  new 
government,  "Helvidius"  again  quoted  the  " great  con- 
stitutional authority,' '  Hamilton,  to  the  contrary.  No. 
69  of  "The  Federalist,"  written  by  Hamilton,  says  that 
this  right  is  "more  a  matter  of  dignity  than  authority.' ' 

It  is  a  circumstance,  that  will  be  without  consequence  in  the 
administration  of  the  Government,  and  it  is  far  more  convenient 
that  it  should  be  arranged  in  this  manner  than  that  there  should 
be  a  necessity  for  convening  the  legislature  or  one  of  its  branches 
upon  every  arrival  of  a  foreign  minister,  though  it  were  merely 
to  take  the  place  of  a  departed  predecessor. 

"Helvidius"  comments  on  this  as  follows: 

Had  it  been  foretold  in  the  year  1788,  when  this  work  was 
published,  that,  before  the  end  of  the  year  1793,  a  writer,  as- 
suming the  merit  of  being  a  friend  to  the  Constitution,  would 
appear  and  gravely  maintain  that  this  function,  which  was  to 
be  without  consequence  in  the  administration  of  the  Government, 
might  have  the  consequence  of  deciding  on  the  validity  of  revo- 
lutions in  favor  of  liberty,  "of  putting  the  United  States  in  a 
condition  to  become  an  associate  in  war ' '  .  .  .  nay,  ' '  of  lay- 
ing the  legislature  under  an  obligation  of  declaring  war,"  what 
would  have  been  thought  and  said  of  so  visionary  a  prophet  ? 

Against  "  Pacificus  's ' '  inference  that  the  executive 
has  a  right  to  give  or  refuse  operation  to  preexisting 
treaties,  because  of  a  change  in  the  government  of  the 
foreign  party,  he  quotes  Burlamaqui,  part  IV,  c.  IX, 
§  16,  fl  6,  to  show  that  a  nation,  by  exercising  the  right 
of  changing  the  organ  of  its  will,  even  so  far  as  from 
a  monarchy  to  a  republic,  or  vice  versa,  can  neither 
disengage  itself  from  the  obligations,  nor  forfeit  the 
benefits  of  its  treaties. 

"Helvidius"  thus  concludes  the  constitutional  por- 
tion of  his  argument: 

In  no  part  of  the  Constitution  is  more  wisdom  to  be  found 
than  in  the  clause  which  confides  the  question  of  war  or  peace  to 
the  legislature,  and  not  to  the  executive  department.    Beside  the 


26  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

objection  to  such  a  mixture  of  heterogeneous  powers,  the  trust 
and  the  temptation  would  be  too  great  for  any  one  man;  not 
such  as  nature  may  offer  as  the  prodigy  of  many  centuries,  but 
such  as  may  be  expected  in  the  ordinary  successions  of  magis- 
tracy. War  is  in  fact  the  true  nurse  of  executive  aggrandize- 
ment. In  war  a  physical  force  is  to  be  created;  and  it  is  the 
executive  will  which  is  to  direct  it.  In  war  the  public  treasures 
are  to  be  unlocked ;  and  it  is  the  executive  hand  which  is  to  dis- 
pense them.  In  war  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  office  are  to 
be  multiplied;  and  it  is  the  executive  patronage  under  which 
they  are  to  be  enjoyed.  It  is  in  war,  finally,  that  laurels  are  to 
be  gathered;  and  it  is  the  executive  brow  they  are  to  encircle. 
The  strongest  passions  and  most  dangerous  weaknesses  of  the 
human  breast :  ambition,  avarice,  vanity,  the  honorable  or  venial 
love  of  fame  are  all  in  conspiracy  against  the  desire  and  duty  of 
peace. 

Hence  it  has  grown  into  an  axiom  that  the  executive  is  the  de- 
partment of  power  most  distinguished  by  its  propensity  to  war : 
hence  it  is  the  practice  of  all  states,  in  proportion  as  they  are 
free,  to  disarm  this  propensity  of  its  influence. 

Upon  the  specific  instance  of  the  executive's  en- 
croachment upon  legislative  and  judicial  powers  in  his 
proclamation  of  neutrality  ' '  Helvidius ' '  observes  that 
the  President  must  have  been  ill-advised  by  some  one 
inimical  to  France,  and  regardless  of  the  benefits  which 
were  accruing  to  our  young  republic  from  the  friendship 
of  that  country,  and  were  on  the  point  of  vastly  increas- 
ing. 

A  greater  error  could  not  have  been  committed  than  in  a 
step  that  might  have  turned  the  present  disposition  of  France  to 
open  her  commerce  to  us  as  far  as  a  liberal  calculation  of  her 
interest  would  permit,  and  her  friendship  toward  us,  and  con- 
fidence in  our  friendship  toward  her,  could  prompt,  into  a  dis- 
position to  shut  it  as  closely  against  us  as  the  united  motives  of 
interest,  of  distrust,  and  of  ill  will  could  urge  her. 

On  the  supposition  that  France  might  intend  to  claim  the 
guaranty,  a  hasty  and  harsh  refusal  before  we  were  asked,  on  a 
ground  that  accused  her  of  being  the  aggressor  in  the  war  against 
every  power  in  the  catalogue  of  her  enemies,  and  in  a  crisis  when 
all  her  sensibility  must  be  alive  toward  the  United  States,  would 
have  given  every  possible  irritation  to  a  disappointment  which 
every  motive  that  one  nation  could  feel  toward  another  and  to- 


THE    FRENCH   ALLIANCE  27 

ward  itself  required  to  be  alleviated  by  all  the  circumspection 
and  delicacy  that  could  be  applied  to  the  occasion. 

Notwithstanding  Madison's  arguments  the  proclama- 
tion of  neutrality  was  approved  by  the  American  people 
as  a  whole,  chiefly  out  of  respect  for  Washington,  and 
thus  it  became  a  strong  precedent  for  similar  action  in 
similar  cases  by  subsequent  Presidents. 


CHAPTER  II 

COMMEKCIAL  TREATY  WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN   (  Jay's  TREATY) 

John  Jay's  Treaty  with  Great  Britain — Popular  Opposition — Washington's 
Reply — His  Letter  to  Secretary  Edmund  Randolph — Objections  of  the 
French  Minister — Randolph's  Reply — Resolution  of  Edward  Livingston 
[N.  Y.]  Calling  on  the  President  for  the  Correspondence  Relating  to  the 
Treaty — Debate:  in  Favor,  James  Madison  [Va.]  and  Albert  Gallatin 
[Pa.] — Washington  Refuses  to  Submit  Correspondence — Resolution  of 
Theodore  Sedgwick  [Mass.]  Calling  for  Action  by  the  House  to  Carry 
into  Effect  the  Treaty — Debate:  in  Favor,  William  V.  Murray,  [Md.] 
Fisher  Ames  [Mass.] ;  Opposed,  William  B.  Giles  [Va.] — Letters  of 
"Camillus"  [Alexander  Hamilton,  Rufus  King,  and  John  Jay] — Treaty 
Is  Passed. 


BEFORE  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution 
negotiations  for  a  commercial  treaty  had  been 
proceeding  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain. 

The  British  Government  had  promised  to  send  a  rep- 
resentative to  America,  but  made  evasive  answers  as 
to  the  treaty,  intimating  that  the  British  people  were 
offended  by  the  Americans  giving  preference  to  their 
own  ships  in  tonnage  dues,  etc. 

The  war  with  France,  which  soon  after  arose,  com- 
pelled an  abandonment  of  these  negotiations.  Great 
Britain  and  Holland,  in  order  to  compel  the  French  to 
submit  to  their  terms,  in  June,  1793,  went  to  the  extreme 
and  extraordinary  measure  of  ordering  warships  and 
privateers  to  stop  vessels  bearing  corn,  flour,  or  meal  to 
French  ports,  and  to  sell  the  cargoes  in  British  or 
friendly  ports.  Notwithstanding  remonstrances  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  the  orders  were  rigidly  en- 
forced, and  English  ports  were  soon  filled  with  Ameri- 
can vessels,  originally  bound  to  France. 

28 


JAY'S    TREATY  29 

Jay's  Mission  to  Great  Britain 

On  April  16,  during  a  discussion  of  non-intercourse 
with  Great  Britain,  the  President  nominated  John  Jay 
as  minister  extraordinary  to  the  British  court.  Jay's 
nomination  was  approved  in  the  Senate. 

The  two  great  and  primary  objects  of  this  mission 
were  the  cessation  of  the  vexations  and  spoliations  com- 
mitted on  American  commerce  under  British  orders  and 
the  adjustment  of  all  differences  concerning  the  treaty 
of  peace.  Should  these  points  "be  so  accommodated 
as  to  promise  the  continuance  of  tranquility  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,' '  "the  subject  of  a 
commercial  treaty,"  according  to  Mr.  Jay's  instructions, 
"might  then  be  listened  to,  or  even  broken  to  the  British 
Ministry." 

Aware  that  the  British  Government  might  wish  to 
detach  the  United  States  from  France,  and  even  make 
some  overtures  of  that  kind,  Mr.  Jay  was  specially  in- 
structed to  say  "that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  would  not  derogate  from  their  treaties  and  en- 
gagements with  France." 

On  the  19th  of  November,  1794,  Mr.  Jay  concluded 
and  signed  with  Lord  Grenville  "a  treaty  of  amity, 
commerce,  and  navigation  between  His  Britannic  Majesty 
and  the  United  States. ' '  It  was  received  by  the  President 
on  the  7th  of  March,  1795,  and  on  the  8th  of  June  was 
submitted  to  the  Senate,  and  on  the  24th  of  the  same 
month  that  body  advised  its  ratification,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  12th  article,  relating  to  the  West  India 
trade.  This  interesting  subject  occasioned  violent  de- 
bates in  the  Senate,  and  the  treaty  itself  was  finally 
sanctioned  in  that  body  (excluding  the  article  relating 
to  the  West  India  trade)  by  a  bare  constitutional  ma- 
jority, twenty  against  ten. 

Terms  of  the  Treaty 

The  western  military  posts  were  to  be  surrendered 
to  the  United  States  on  or  before  the  first  of  June,  1796, 
but  no  compensation  was  made  for  negroes  carried  away 


30  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

by  the  British  commander  after  the  peace  of  1783.  The 
United  States  were  to  compensate  British  creditors  for 
losses  occasioned  by  legal  impediments  to  the  collection 
of  debts,  contracted  before  the  Revolutionary  War,  to 
be  settled  and  adjusted  by  commissioners,  and  Great 
Britain  was  to  make  compensation  to  American  mer- 
chants for  illegal  captures  of  their  property,  to  be  ad- 
justed also  in  the  same  mode.  Provision  was  also  made 
for  ascertaining  more  accurately  the  boundaries  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  British  North  American 
possessions. 

British  subjects  holding  lands  in  the  territories  of 
the  United  States  and  American  citizens  holding  lands 
in  the  British  dominions  were  to  continue  to  hold  them, 
according  to  the  nature  and  tenure  of  their  respective 
estates  and  titles  therein,  with  power  to  sell,  grant,  or 
devise  the  same,  and  by  the  tenth  article  it  was  expressly 
provided  that  neither  the  debts  due  from  individuals 
of  the  one  nation  to  individuals  of  the  other,  nor  shares 
or  moneys  in  the  public  funds,  or  in  the  public  or  private 
banks,  should  in  any  event  of  war  or  national  differences 
be  sequestered  or  confiscated,  "it  being  unjust  and  im- 
politic," as  asserted  in  this  article,  "that  debts  and 
engagements  contracted  and  made  by  individuals  having 
confidence  in  each  other  and  in  their  respective  govern- 
ments should  ever  be  destroyed  or  impaired  by  national 
authority  on  account  of  national  differences  and  dis- 
contents. ' ' 

Both  parties  had  liberty  to  trade  with  the  Indians 
in  their  respective  territories  in  America  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  country  within  the  limits  of  the  Hudson 
Bay  Company),  and  the  river  Mississippi  was  to  be  also 
open  to  both  nations. 

The  ten  first  articles  principally  embracing  these  im- 
portant subjects  were  made  permanent. 

The  other  eighteen  articles  related  to  the  future  in- 
tercourse between  the  two  countries,  and  in  their  dura- 
tion were  limited  to  twelve  years,  or  two  years  after 
the  termination  of  the  war  in  which  the  British  nation 
was  then  engaged.  By  the  twelfth  article  a  direct  trade 
was  permitted  between  the  United  States  and  the  British 


JAY'S    TREATY  31 

West  India  Islands  in  American  vessels  not  above  the 
burden  of  seventy  tons,  and  in  goods  or  merchandise 
of  the  growth,  manufacture,  or  produce  of  the  States, 
and  in  the  productions  of  the  islands,  but  the  United 
States  were  restrained  from  carrying  molasses,  sugar, 
coffee,  cocoa,  or  cotton  either  from  the  islands  or  from 
the  United  States  to  any  part  of  the  world. 

As  a  considerable  quantity  of  cotton  at  that  time 
was  produced  in  the  Southern  States,  and  had  then  begun 
to  be  exported,  and  the  quantity  would  probably  in- 
crease, the  twelfth  article  was  excluded.  The  American 
negotiator,  it  was  said,  was  then  ignorant  that  cotton 
of  the  growth  of  the  United  States  had  or  would  become 
an  article  of  export.1 

A  reciprocal  liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation 
between  the  United  States  and  the  British  dominions 
in  Europe  was  established,  neither  to  be  subject  to 
higher  duties  than  other  nations,  the  British  Govern- 
ment reserving  the  right  of  countervailing  the  American 
foreign  duties.  And  American  vessels  were  freely  ad- 
mitted into  the  ports  of  the  British  territories  in  the 
East  Indies,  but  not  to  carry  on  the  coasting  trade. 

Timber  for  shipbuilding  and  material  such  as  tar, 
sails,  copper,  etc.,  for  the  equipment  of  vessels  were 
included  in  the  list  of  contraband.  With  respect  to  pro- 
visions and  other  articles,  not  generally  contraband,  on 
"account  of  the  difficulty  of  agreeing  on  the  precise 
cases  in  which  they  should  be  regarded  as  such/'  and 
for  the  purpose  of  providing  against  the  inconveniences 
and  misunderstandings  which  might  thence  arise,  it  was 
declared  that  whenever  such  articles  should  become  con- 
traband, according  to  the  existing  law  of  nations,  the 
same  should  not  be  confiscated,  but  the  owners  be  com- 
pletely indemnified  by  the  captors  or  the  Government. 

1Eli  Whitney  (1765-1825),  of  Massachusetts,  a  Yale  graduate,  went  to 
Georgia  to  teach  on  the  plantation  of  the  widow  of  General  Greene.  At  her 
request  he  invented  in  1793  the  saw  cotton  gin  for  separating  the  seed  from 
the  fiber.  Within  a  year  or  so  it  had  enormously  increased  the  crop.  Thus 
in  1791  only  189,316  pounds  were  exported,  and  in  1800,  17,789,803  pounds. 
It  made  the  labor  of  slaves  exceedingly  profitable  in  the  "cotton  States,' ' 
and  so  prevented  that  gradual  emancipation  which  the  Fathers  of  the  coun- 
try had  hoped  for. 


32  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Prizes  made  by  ships  of  war  and  privateers  of  either 
party  might  enter  and  depart  from  the  ports  of  each 
other  without  examination,  ,and  no  shelter  or  refuge 
was  allowed  to  such  vessels  as  had  made  a  prize  upon 
the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  parties.  Nothing,  how- 
ever, in  the  treaty  was  to  operate  contrary  to  former 
and  existing  treaties  with  other  nations. 

Mr.  Jay  was  unable  to  obtain  a  stipulation  that  free 
ships  should  make  free  goods.  It  was  hardly  to  be  ex- 
pected that  Great  Britain  in  time  of  war  would  consent 
to  any  relaxation  of  the  rigid  rule  of  law  on  this  subject. 

These  are  the  principal  features  of  a  treaty  which 
gave  such  high  offence  to  the  rulers  of  France  and 
created  such  divisions  in  the  United  States  as  to  put 
in  jeopardy  the  Government  itself. 

Unfortunately  it  left  the  important  question  with 
respect  to  provisions  being  contraband  as  it  found  it, 
resting  on  the  existing  law  of  nations,  but  Mr.  Jay,  to 
whom  had  been  assigned  a  most  difficult  as  well  as  most 
delicate  task,  in  a  private  letter  to  the  President  on  the 
subject  of  the  treaty,  said,  "to  do  more  was  impossible.' ' 
He  also  added,  "I  ought  not  to  conceal  from  you  that 
the  confidence  reposed  in  your  personal  character  was 
visible  and  useful  throughout  the  negotiations. ' ' 

The  treaty  was  approved  by  Thomas  Pinckney,  the 
resident  Minister  at  the  court  of  London.  In  his  letter 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  he  observed,  "although  some 
points  might  have  been  arranged  more  beneficially  for 
us,  if  the  treaty  had  been  dictated  entirely  by  the  United 
States,  yet  when  it  is  considered  as  a  composition  of 
differences  where  mutual  complaints  had  rendered 
mutual  concessions  necessary  to  establish  a  good  under- 
standing, I  think  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  as  little  has 
been  conceded  by  Mr.  Jay,  and  as  much  obtained  for 
the  United  States  as,  under  all  circumstances  considered, 
could  be  expected.' ' 

This  treaty  was  the  first  with  any  foreign  power 
under  the  new  Government.  Treaties  had  only  been 
formed  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and  in  these  instances, 
as  well  as  in  the  instance  of  an  attempt  to  obtain  the 
release   of  American  prisoners   by  a  treaty  with  the 


JAY'S    TREATY  33 

regency  of  Algiers,  the  President  had  in  person  attended 
the  Senate  and  requested  their  advice  as  to  the  terms 
he  was  about  to  propose.  In  this  mode  of  proceeding 
serious  difficulties  had  arisen,  and  on  reconsideration  it 
had  been  deemed  most  consistent  with  the  Constitution 
not  to  consult  the  Senate  in  a  formal  manner  until  a 
treaty  had  actually  been  made.  The  Senate,  therefore, 
in  this  instance  were  not  previously  consulted  by  the 
President  as  to  the  terms  of  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain. 
This  has  ever  since  been  considered  the  true  construc- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  and  the  course  then  adopted  has 
been  invariably  pursued. 

Populae  Opposition  to  Tkeaty 

Although  secrecy  was  enjoined,  yet  one  member  of 
the  Senate,  soon  after  that  body  had  advised  its  ratifica- 
tion, caused  the  treaty  to  be  published  in  one  of  the 
public  newspapers  in  Philadelphia,  and  it  immediately 
became  a  subject  of  discussion. 

Many  of  the  opponents  of  the  administration  were 
prepared  to  pronounce  the  treaty's  condemnation. 
Meetings  of  the  citizens  were  held  on  the  subject,  and 
such  was  the  state  of  public  feeling  against  Great 
Britain  that  the  passions,  rather  than  the  understand- 
ings, of  the  people  were  addressed,  and  resolutions  were 
passed  and  presented  to  the  President  condemning  the 
treaty  in  the  most  unqualified  manner,  and  requesting 
him  to  withhold  his  assent. 

Washington's  Reply 

Washington's  answer  disclosed  the  course  he  in- 
tended to  pursue — a  course  alike  firm  and  dignified. 
After  stating  that  in  every  act  of  his  administration 
he  had  sought  the  happiness  of  his  fellow  citizens,  and 
that  to  obtain  this  object,  overlooking  all  local,  partial, 
or  personal  considerations,  he  had  contemplated  the 
United  States  as  one  great  whole,  and  trusting  that 
sudden  impressions,  when  erroneous,  would  yield  to 
candid  reflection,  he  had  consulted  only  the  substantial 
and  permanent  interests  of  his  country,  he  said: 


34  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

M  Without  a  predilection  for  my  own  judgment  I  have 
weighed  with  attention  every  argument  which  has,  at  any  time, 
been  brought  into  view.  But  the  Constitution  is  the  guide 
which  I  never  can  abandon.  It  has  assigned  to  the  President 
the  power  of  making  treaties,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate.  It  was  doubtless  supposed  that  these  two  branches  of 
government  would  combine  without  passion,  and  with  the  best 
means  of  information,  those  facts  and  principles  upon  which  the 
success  of  our  foreign  relations  will  always  depend;  that  they 
ought  not  to  substitute  for  their  own  conviction  the  opinions  of 
others;  or  to  seek  truth  through  any  channel  but  that  of  a 
temperate  and  well-informed  investigation.  Under  this  persua- 
sion I  have  resolved  on  the  manner  of  executing  the  duty  before 
me.  To  the  high  responsibility  attached  to  it  I  freely  submit; 
and  you,  gentlemen,  are  at  liberty  to  make  these  sentiments 
known  as  the  ground  of  my  procedure.  While  I  feel  the  most 
lively  gratitude  for  the  many  instances  of  approbation  from  my 
country,  I  cannot  otherwise  deserve  it  than  by  obeying  the  dic- 
tates of  my  conscience. ' ' 

In  a  letter  to  Edmund  Randolph,  who  had  succeeded 
Thomas  Jefferson  as  Secretary  of  State  in  1794,  Wash- 
ington observes: 

"To  be  wise  and  temperate,  as  well  as  firm,  the  crisis  most 
eminently  calls  for ;  for  there  is  too  much  reason  to  believe,  from 
the  pains  which  have  been  taken  before,  at,  and  since  the  advice 
of  the  Senate  respecting  the  treaty,  that  the  prejudices  against 
it  are  more  extensive  than  is  generally  imagined.  This,  from 
men  who  are  of  no  party,  but  well  disposed  to  the  Government, 
I  have  lately  learned  is  the  case.  How  should  it  be  otherwise? 
when  no  stone  has  been  left  unturned  that  would  impress  the 
people's  minds  with  the  most  arrant  misrepresentations  of  facts 
— that  their  rights  have  not  only  been  neglected,  but  absolutely 
sold — that  there  are  no  reciprocal  advantages  in  the  treaty ;  that 
the  benefits  are  all  on  the  side  of  Great  Britain ;  and,  what  seems 
to  have  more  weight  than  all  the  rest,  and  has  been  most  pressed, 
is,  that  this  treaty  is  made  with  a  design  to  oppress  the  French, 
in  open  violation  of  a  treaty  with  that  nation,  and  contrary,  too, 
to  every  principle  of  gratitude  and  sound  policy.  In  time  when 
passion  shall  have  yielded  to  sober  reason  the  current  may  pos- 
sibly turn ;  but,  in  the  meanwhile,  this  Government,  in  relation 
to  France  and  England,  may  be  compared  to  a  ship  between  the 
rocks  of  Scylla  and  Charybdis.     If  the  treaty  is  ratified  the 


JAY'S    TREATY  35 

partizans  of  France  (or  rather  of  war  and  confusion)  will  ex- 
cite them  to  hostile  measures;  or,  at  least,  to  unfriendly  senti- 
ments. If  it  is  not,  there  is  no  foreseeing  all  the  consequences 
that  may  follow,  as  it  respects  Great  Britain.  It  is  not  to  be 
inferred  from  this  that  I  am,  or  shall  be,  disposed  to  quit  the 
ground  I  have  taken ;  unless  circumstances,  more  imperious  than 
have  yet  come  to  my  knowledge,  shall  compel  it ;  for  there  is  but 
one  straight  course  in  these  things,  and  that  is  to  seek  truth  and 
pursue  it  steadily." 

Objections  of  the  French  Minister 

The  treaty  was  ratified  on  August  14  on  the  terms 
proposed  by  the  Senate. 

In  the  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  perfect  good 
faith  was  observed  toward  France.  The  French  Min- 
ister, M.  Adet,  had  been  informed  that  Mr.  Jay  had 
instructions  not  to  weaken  the  engagements  with  his 
nation.  A  copy  of  the  treaty  was  also  submitted  to  M. 
Adet  by  direction  of  the  President  with  a  request  that 
he  would  state  his  objections.  On  the  30th  of  June  he, 
in  a  note  to  the  Secretary  of  the  State,  referred  to 
such  parts  as  appeared  to  him  to  destroy  the  effect  of 
the  treaty  with  France.  The  stipulations  referred  to 
were  those  which  made  contraband  of  war  of  naval 
stores  excluded  from  that  list  in  the  French  treaty, 
which  subjected  to  seizure  enemy 's  property  in  neutral 
bottom^,  and  admitted  prizes  in  American  ports.  To 
the  first  and  second  the  American  secretary  immediately 
answered  that  naval  stores  were  contraband  by  the  law 
of  nations,  that  by  the  same  law  enemy's  property  in 
neutral  bottoms  was  good  prize,  and  that  on  these  points 
Great  Britain  could  not  be  prevailed  upon  to  relax,  and 
with  respect  to  the  admission  of  prizes  into  American 
ports  this  privilege  did  not  extend  to  those  made  from 
the  French  during  the  present  or  any  future  war  be- 
cause contrary  to  the  existing  treaty  with  France. 

Petitions  Against  the  Treaty 

On  the  first  of  March  the  President  informed  Con- 
gress by  message  that  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  had 


36  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

been  duly  ratified,  that  he  had  directed  it  to  be  promul- 
gated, and  had  transmitted  a  copy  thereof  for  their  in- 
formation. This  important  subject  in  various  ways 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  House  for  a  great  part 
of  the  remainder  of  the  session.  Soon  after  its  ratifica- 
tion by  the  President  was  known,  petitions  against  it 
were  circulated  throughout  the  United  States  for  signa- 
tures. These  petitions,  all  couched  in  the  same  lan- 
guage, were  addressed  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 
The  petitioners  after  stating  that  certain  stipulations 
in  the  treaty  tended  to  involve  their  country  in  the 
political  intrigues  of  European  nations,  to  infract  the 
treaty  of  alliance  with  France,  and  to  produce  the  sad 
spectacle  of  war  between  that  magnanimous  republic  and 
the  republic  of  the  United  States  proceeded  to  declare 
that  many  of  its  stipulations  were  manifest  encroach- 
ments on  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress.  They 
presented  the  following  instances  of  such  encroach- 
ments : 

1.  The  regulation  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations. 

2.  The  regulation  of  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indian 
tribes. 

3.  Regulating  the  territory  of  the  United  States  and  of  in- 
dividual States. 

4.  Establishing  duties  and  imposts. 

5.  Establishing  a  rule  of  naturalization. 

6.  Constituting  a  tribunal  of  appeal,  paramount  to  the 
supreme  judicial  court  of  the  United  States. 

7.  Changing  the  terms  of,  and  establishing  a  rule  to  hold, 
real  estate. 

8.  Defining  piracies  committed  on  the  high  seas,  and  de- 
claring the  punishment  thereof. 

9.  Depriving  free  citizens  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  in  the  case  of  piracy,  as  defined  and  punished  by 
the  said  treaty ;  and, 

10.     Attempting,  in  various  other  instances,  to  restrain  and 
limit  the  legislative  authority  of  Congress. 

The  petitioners  in  conclusion  said: 

*  *  Wherefore  solemnly  protesting  against  the  exercise  of  power 
by  the  President  and  Senate,  in  any  of  the  foregoing  cases,  with- 


JAY'S    TREATY  37 

out  the  concurrence  of  Congress,  as  manifestly  tending  to  absorb 
all  the  powers  of  government  in  that  department  alone;  to  es- 
tablish, as  the  sole  rule  of  legislation  over  all  the  great  foreign 
and  domestic  concerns  of  the  United  States,  the  mere  will  and 
absolute  discretion  of  the  President  and  Senate,  in  conjunction 
with  a  foreign  power ;  and  finally  to  overturn  and  effect  a  total 
change  in  the  present  happy  Constitution  of  the  United  States — 
We  most  earnestly  pray  that  the  representatives  of  the  people,  in 
Congress  assembled,  will,  in  their  wisdom,  adopt  such  measures, 
touching  the  said  treaty,  as  shall  most  effectually  secure  from 
encroachment  the  constitutional  delegated  powers  of  Congress, 
and  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  preserve  to  our  country  an  un- 
interrupted continuance  of  the  blessings  of  peace." 

Many  of  these  petitions  were  presented  in  the  winter 
of  1796  from  different  parts  of  the  Union,  and  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  proceedings  of  the  House  in  relation 
to  the  treaty. 

Livingston's  Resolution 

Before  the  merits  of  the  treaty  itself  became  a  sub- 
ject of  debate  an  important  preliminary  question  arose 
upon  a  resolution  calling  on  the  President  for  the  instruc- 
tions of  Mr.  Jay  and  the  correspondence  and  documents 
relating  to  it.  This  resolution  was  offered  by  Edward 
Livingston  (New  York)  on  the  2nd  of  March,  and  was 
debated  until  the  24th  of  that  month,  when  it  passed, 
62  to  37. 

The  principal  question  on  this  resolution  was  as  to 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  House  in  relation  to 
treaties.  Never  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
had  so  much  talent  been  displayed  or  so  much  warmth 
manifested  as  in  the  debates  on  this  preliminary  ques- 
tion and  on  the  merits  of  the  treaty  itself. 

The  speakers  on  both  sides  were  numerous  and  a 
very  wide  range  was  taken  in  debate.  Every  article 
and  every  word  in  the  Constitution  having  the  least 
bearing  on  the  question  was  critically  examined  and  ap- 
plied. 

A  sketch  of  the  principal  arguments  is  here  pre- 
sented. 


38  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Powee  of  House  Ovee  Teeaties 
House  of  Representatives,  March  2-24,  1796 

In  opposition  to  the  call  it  was  said  that  the  Constitu- 
tion in  plain  and  explicit  terms  had  declared  that  the 
President  should  have  power  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate  to  make  treaties,  and  that  all 
treaties  made,  or  which  should  be  made,  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States  should  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  That  the  power  of  making  treaties 
was  an  important  act  of  sovereignty  in  every  govern- 
ment, and  in  most  countries  was  very  properly  intrusted 
with  the  executive  branch.  That  the  American  Consti- 
tution had  vested  this  power  with  the  President  in  con- 
currence with  two-thirds  of  the  Senate.  That  a  treaty 
fairly  made  and  embracing  those  things  which  are  the 
proper  objects  of  compact  between  nations  when  thus 
assented  to  and  duly  ratified  became  a  solemn  compact 
binding  on  the  United  States  was  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land  and  ought  to  be  carried  into  execution.  That 
legislative  aid  or  assent  was  not  necessary  to  give  it 
validity  or  binding  force,  though  sometimes  required 
agreeably  to  the  form  of  our  Government  to  carry  it 
into  complete  effect.  Where  laws  or  appropriations  of 
money  were  requisite  for  this  purpose  it  was  in  all 
ordinary  cases  the  duty  of  the  legislative  branch  of  the 
Government  to  pass  such  laws  and  make  such  appropria- 
tions, and  that  a  failure  so  to  do  would  be  a  breach  of 
national  faith,  as  much  so  as  to  refuse  to  make  ap- 
propriations for  the  payment  of  a  debt  legally  con- 
tracted. 

Extraordinary  cases,  it  was  said,  might  occur  in 
which  the  legislature  might  be  justified  in  refusing  its  aid 
to  carry  a  treaty  into  effect.  The  conduct  of  a  nation 
with  which  the  compact  was  made  might  be  such  after 
the  completion  of  the  treaty,  or  the  stipulations  in  it 
might  be  so  ruinous  to  the  State,  as  to  render  it  proper 
and  even  make  it  a  duty  for  the  legislative  branch  to 
withhold  its  aid.  These  cases,  however,  it  was  said,  were 
not  to  be  governed  by  ordinary  rules,  but  when  they 


JAY'S    TREATY  39 

occurred  would  make  a  law  for  themselves  not  affecting 
the  general  rule. 

The  House  of  Eepresentatives  were  not  making  a 
Constitution,  but  expounding  one  already  made,  and, 
while  they  should  watch  with  a  jealous  eye  every  en- 
croachment on  their  rights  by  another  branch  of  the 
Government,  they  should  be  cautious  not  to  usurp  power 
constitutionally  vested  in  others.  That  the  treaties  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Constitution  included  all  those  usually 
made — treaties  of  peace,  alliance,  and  commerce,  and 
that  no  precise  limits  to  this  power  were  fixed,  and 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  could  not  be.  The  people 
of  the  United  States  who  adopted  the  Constitution  con- 
sidered their  interest  and  rights  sufficiently  secured  by 
placing  this  necessary  and  important  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  President  and  one  branch  of  the  legislature,  and 
that  this  necessarily  excluded  the  other  legislative 
branch.  It  was  well  known,  it  was  also  urged,  that  most 
of  the  treaties  usually  made  must  necessarily  include 
regulations  concerning  many  objects  intrusted  likewise 
by  the  Constitution  to  legislative  regulations,  and,  if 
the  treaty  power  could  not  operate  on  these,  the  power 
itself  would  be  reduced  to  very  narrow  limits,  and  no 
treaty  with  a  foreign  nation  could  be  made  embracing 
these  objects,  as  Congress,  to  whom  all  legislative  power 
was  given,  had  no  authority  to  make  treaties.  It  was 
necessary,  also,  it  was  said,  to  consider  that  the  legis- 
lative power  and  treaty  power  operated  differently  and 
for  different  purposes.  The  former  was  limited  to  its 
own  jurisdiction,  and  could  not  extend  to  a  foreign  juris- 
diction and  government.  A  legislature  could  indeed 
grant  privileges  to  foreigners  within  its  jurisdictional 
limits,  but  could  not  secure  reciprocal  privileges  in  a 
foreign  country ;  this  could  only  be  done  with  the  assent 
of  a  foreign  government,  and  this  assent  was  not  usually 
given  except  by  treaty. 

Treaties,  being  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  must 
also,  it  was  said,  be  paramount  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  as  well  as  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  in- 
dividual States.  That  Congress,  under  the  Confedera- 
tion, was  invested  with  the  power  of  "  entering  into 


40  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

treaties  and  alliances"  on  condition  "that  no  treaty  of 
commerce  should  be  made,  whereby  the  legislative  power 
of  the  respective  States  should  be  restrained  from  im- 
posing such  imposts  and  duties  on  foreigners  as  their 
own  people  were  subjected  to,  or  from  prohibiting  the 
exportation  of  any  species  of  goods  or  commodities  what- 
soever/ '  With  these  exceptions  the  power  was  general, 
and  treaties  made  in  pursuance  of  it  had  been  considered 
paramount  to  State  laws  without  the  assent  of  the  States 
themselves.  When  some  of  the  State  laws  were  supposed 
to  contravene  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain, 
Congress,  in  their  address  to  the  States  on  the  subject, 
declared  that  "when  a  treaty  was  constitutionally  made, 
ratified,  and  published  it  immediately  became  binding  on 
the  whole  nation  and  superadded  to  the  laws  of  the 
land  without  the  intervention  of  State  legislatures. 
That  treaties  derived  their  obligations  from  being  com- 
pacts between  the  sovereigns  of  this  and  of  another 
nation,  whereas  laws  or  statutes  derived  their  force 
from  being  the  acts  of  the  legislature  competent  to  the 
passing  them."  They  therefore  unanimously  "resolved 
that  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States  cannot  of 
right  pass  any  act  or  acts  for  interpreting,  explaining, 
or  construing  a  national  treaty,  or  any  part  or  clause 
of  it,  nor  for  restraining,  limiting,  or  in  any  manner 
impeding,  retarding,  or  countervailing  the  operation  or 
execution  of  the  same,  for  that,  on  being  constitutionally 
made,  ratified,  and  published  they  become  in  virtue  of 
the  Confederation  part  of  the  laws  of  the  land  and  are 
not  only  independent  of  the  will  and  power  of  such  legis- 
latures, but  also  binding  and  obligatory  on  them.,,  To 
remove  all  ground  of  complaint,  however,  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain,  Congress  recommended  to  the  States 
to  pass  general  acts  repealing  all  laws  repugnant  to 
that  treaty.  That  afterwards  in  a  discussion  with  the 
British  minister  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Jefferson,  then 
Secretary  of  State,  speaking  of  the  repealing  acts  of  the 
States,  said,  "indeed  all  this  was  supererogation.  It 
resulted  from  the  instrument  of  confederation  among  the 
States  that  treaties  made  by  Congress  according  to  the 
Confederation  were  superior  to  the  laws  of  the  States.' f 


JAY'S    TREATY  41 

The  opponents  of  the  resolution  also  contended  that 
the  Constitution  was  so  understood  not  only  in  the 
general  convention,  but  in  the  State  conventions  which 
ratified  that  instrument,  and  in  some  of  the  latter  this 
was  made  a  strong  ground  of  objection,  particularly 
those  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  One  of  the 
amendments  proposed  by  the  Virginia  convention  was 
"that  no  commercial  treaty  should  be  ratified  without 
the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of 
Senators,  and  no  treaty  ceding,  restraining,  or  suspend- 
ing the  territorial  rights  or  claims  of  the  United  States, 
or  any  of  their  rights  or  claims  to  fishing  in  the  Ameri- 
can seas  or  navigating  the  American  rivers,  shall  be,  but 
in  case  of  the  most  urgent  and  extreme  necessity,  nor 
shall  any  such  treaty  be  ratified  without  the  concurrence 
of  three-fourths  of  the  whole  number  of  the  members 
of  both  Houses  respectively. ' '  The  convention  of  North 
Carolina  proposed  an  amendment  "that  no  treaties 
which  shall  be  directly  opposed  to  the  existing  laws  of 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  be  valid 
until  such  laws  shall  be  repealed  or  made  conformable 
to  such  treaty,  nor  shall  any  treaty  be  valid  which  is 
contradictory  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.' ' 

The  same  construction,  it  was  said,  had  uniformly 
been  given  to  this  part  of  the  Constitution  by  the  House 
of  Representatives ;  that  various  treaties  had  been  made 
with  the  Indian  tribes  embracing  a  surrender  of  lands, 
settlement  of  boundaries,  grants  of  money,  etc.,  and 
when  made  and  ratified  by  the  President  and  Senate 
had  been  considered  as  laws  of  the  land  without  the 
sanction  of  the  House,  and  money,  when  necessary,  had 
been  appropriated  as  a  matter  of  course;  that  the  Con- 
stitution made  no  distinction  between  treaties  with 
foreign  nations  and  with  Indian  tribes,  the  same  clause 
applying  to  both.  And  that  the  House,  in  June,  1790, 
declared  by  a  resolution  "that  all  treaties  made,  or 
which  should  be  made  and  promulgated  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  should  from  time  to  time 
be  published  and  annexed  to  the  code  of  laws  by  the 
Secretary  of  State."  That  the  secretaries  had  accord- 
ingly always  annexed  treaties  to  the  laws  as  soon  as 


42  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

ratified  by  the  President  and  Senate  and  promulgated 
by  the  former. 

The  resolution  was  not  only  supported  by  the  mover 
and  others,  but  had  the  aid  of  all  the  ingenuity  and 
talents  of  James  Madison  (Virginia)  and  Albert  Gallatin 
(Pennsylvania). 

Mr.  Gallatin,  alluding  to  the  great  constitutional  question 
made  by  the  opponents  of  the  resolution,  said  he  had  hoped  in 
that  stage  of  the  business  this  would  have  been  avoided ;  but,  as 
gentlemen  in  opposition  "had  come  forward  on  that  ground, 
he  had  no  objection  to  follow  them  in  it,  and  rest  the  decision  of 
the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress  on  the  fate  of  the  present 
question.  He  would,  therefore, '  *  he  said,  '  *  state  his  opinion  that 
the  House  had  a  right  to  ask  for  the  papers  proposed  to  be  called 
for,  because  their  cooperation  and  sanction  were  necessary  to 
carry  the  treaty  into  effect,  to  render  it  a  binding  instrument, 
and  to  make  it,  properly  speaking,  a  law  of  the  land;  because 
they  had  a  full  discretion  to  refuse  that  cooperation,  because 
they  must  be  guided  in  the  exercise  of  that  discretion  by  the 
merits  and  expediency  of  the  treaty  itself,  and  therefore  had  a 
right  to  ask  for  every  information  which  could  assist  them  in  de- 
ciding that  question. 

' '  The  general  power  of  making  treaties,  undefined  as  it  is,  by 
the  clause  which  grants  it,  may  either  be  expressly  limited  by 
some  other  positive  clauses  of  the  Constitution;  or  it  may  be 
checked  by  some  powers  vested  in  other  branches  of  the  Govern- 
ment, which,  although  not  diminishing,  may  control  the  treaty- 
making  power.  That  the  specific  legislative  powers  delegated  to 
Congress  were  limitations  of  the  undefined  power  of  making 
treaties  vested  in  the  President  and  Senate ;  and  that  the  general 
power  of  granting  money,  also  vested  in  Congress,  would  at  all 
events  be  used,  if  necessary,  as  a  check  upon,  and  as  controlling, 
the  exercise  of  the  powers  claimed  by  the  President  and  Senate. ' ' 

After  stating  that  a  treaty  could  not  repeal  a  law  of  the 
United  States,  Mr.  Gallatin  asked,  "to  what  would  a  contrary 
doctrine  lead?  If  the  power  of  making  treaties  is  to  reside  in 
the  President  and  Senate  unlimitedly — in  other  words,  if  in  the 
exercise  of  this  power  the  President  and  Senate  are  to  be  re- 
strained by  no  other  branch  of  the  Government — the  President 
and  Senate  may  absorb  all  legislative  power ;  the  Executive  has 
nothing  to  do  but  to  substitute  a  foreign  nation  for  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  they  may  legislate  to  any  extent."  Mr. 
Gallatin  further  remarked  that  "he  should  not  say  that  the 


JAY'S    TREATY  43 

treaty  is  unconstitutional  j  but  he  would  say  that  it  was  not  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land  until  it  received  the  sanction  of  the  legis- 
lature. That  the  Constitution  and  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  and  treaties  made  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  are  declared  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  The 
words  are, '  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States, '  not '  signed 
and  ratified  by  the  President ' ;  so  that  a  treaty  clashing  in  any  of 
its  provisions  with  the  express  powers  of  Congress,  until  it  has 
so  far  obtained  the  sanction  of  Congress,  is  not  a  treaty  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States." 

He  also  added  that  treaties  were  the  supreme  law  of  the  land 
only  when  they  came  in  competition  with  the  Constitutions  and 
laws  of  the  individual  States,  but  were  not  supreme  or  para- 
mount to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  because  it  is  declared,  in 
the  same  clause  of  the  Constitution,  "and  the  judges  in  every 
State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

"It  would  have  been  childish  if  the  Constitution  had  confined 
itself  to  expressing  the  first  part  of  the  clause,  because  no  doubt 
could  arise  whether  the  Constitution,  laws,  and  treaties  were  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land ;  but,  as  the  general  Government  sprung 
out  of  a  confederation  of  States,  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to 
give  that  Government  sufficient  authority  to  provide  for  the  gen- 
eral welfare,  that  the  laws  of  the  Union  should  supersede  the 
laws  of  the  particular  States.  But  the  clause  does  not  compare  a 
treaty  with  the  law  of  the  United  States,  or  either  of  them  with 
the  Constitution;  it  only  compares  all  the  acts  of  the  Federal 
Government  with  the  acts  of  the  individual  States,  and  declares 
that  either  of  the  first,  whether  under  the  name  of  Constitution, 
law,  or  treaty,  shall  be  paramount  to,  and  supersede,  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  individual  States." 

The  views  of  Mr.  Madison  on  this  important  question 
were  generally  in  accordance  with  those  expressed  by 
Mr.  Gallatin. 

Mr.  Madison. — I  regret  that  on  a  question  of  such  magni- 
tude there  should  be  any  apparent  inconsistency  or  inexplicit- 
ness  in  the  Constitution  that  could  leave  room  for  different  con- 
structions. 

As  the  case,  however,  has  happened,  all  that  can  be  done  is 
to  examine  the  different  constructions  with  accuracy  and  fair- 
ness, according  to  the  rules  established  therefor,  and  to  adhere 
to  that  which  should  be  found  most  rational,  consistent,  and  sat- 
isfactory. 


44  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Mr.  Madison  confined  his  remarks  principally  to  two 
different  constructions:  one — and  that  supported,  as  he 
said,  by  the  opponents  of  the  resolution — that  the  treaty 
power  was  "both  unlimited  in  its  objects  and  completely 
paramount  in  its  authority";  the  other,  that  the  con- 
gressional power  was  cooperative  with  the  treaty  power 
on  the  legislative  subjects  submitted  to  Congress  by  the 
Constitution. 

As  to  the  first,  it  is  important,  and  appears  to  me  to  be  a  de- 
cisive view  of  the  subject,  that,  if  the  treaty  power  alone  can 
perform  any  one  act  for  which  the  authority  of  Congress  is  re- 
quired by  the  Constitution,  it  may  perform  any  act  for  which  the 
authority  of  that  part  of  the  Government  is  required.  Congress 
have  power  to  regulate  trade,  to  declare  war,  to  raise  armies,  to 
levy,  borrow,  and  appropriate  money,  etc.  If  by  treaty,  there- 
fore, as  paramount  to  the  legislative  power,  the  President  and 
Senate  can  regulate  trade,  they  can  also  declare  war,  they  can 
raise  armies  to  carry  on  war,  and  they  can  procure  money  to 
support  armies.  I  am  unable  to  draw  a  line  between  any  of  the 
enumerated  powers  of  Congress;  and  did  not  see  but  the  Presi- 
dent and  Senate  might,  by  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  a  nation  at 
war,  make  the  United  States  a  party  in  that  war.  They  might 
stipulate  subsidies,  and  even  borrow  money  to  pay  them:  they 
might  furnish  troops  to  be  carried  to  Europe,  Asia,  or  Africa — 
they  might  even  attempt  to  keep  up  a  standing  army  in  time  of 
peace  for  the  purpose  of  cooperating  on  given  contingencies  with 
an  ally,  for  mutual  safety,  or  other  common  objects. 

The  force  of  this  reasoning  is  not  obviated  by  saying  that  the 
President  and  Senate  could  only  pledge  the  public  faith,  and 
that  the  agency  of  Congress  would  be  necessary  to  carry  it  into 
operation :  For,  what  difference  does  this  make  if  the  obligation 
imposed  be,  as  is  alleged,  a  Constitutional  one ;  if  Congress  have 
no  will  but  to  obey,  and  if  to  disobey  be  treason  and  rebellion 
against  the  constituted  authorities?  Under  a  Constitutional 
obligation,  with  such  sanctions  to  it,  Congress,  in  case  the  Presi- 
dent and  Senate  should  enter  into  an  alliance  for  war,  would  be 
nothing  more  than  the  mere  heralds  for  proclaiming  it. 

He  considered  that  construction  the  most  consistent, 
most  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution, 
and  freest  from  difficulties  "which  left  with  the  Presi- 
dent and  Senate  the  power  of  making  treaties,  but  re- 
quired at  the  same  time  the  legislative  sanction  and 


JAY'S    TREATY  45 

cooperation  in  those  cases  where  the  Constitution  had 
given  express  and  specified  powers  to  the  legislature. 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  in  all  such  cases  the  legislature 
would  exercise  its  authority  with  discretion,  allowing  due  weight 
to  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  treaty.  Still,  however,  this  House, 
in  its  legislative  capacity,  must  exercise  its  reason ;  it  must  delib- 
erate ;  for  deliberation  is  implied  in  legislation.  If  it  must  carry 
all  treaties  into  effect  it  would  no  longer  exercise  a  legislative 
power ;  it  would  be  the  mere  instrument  of  the  will  of  another  de- 
partment, and  would  have  no  will  of  its  own.  When  the  Con- 
stitution contains  a  specific  and  peremptory  injunction  on  Con- 
gress to  do  a  particular  act,  Congress  must,  of  course,  do  the  act, 
because  the  Constitution,  which  is  paramount  over  all  the  de- 
partments, has  expressly  taken  away  the  legislative  discretion  of 
Congress.  The  case  is  essentially  different  when  the  act  of  one 
department  of  government  interferes  with  a  power  expressly 
vested  in  another  and  nowhere  expressly  taken  away :  Here  the 
latter  power  must  be  exercised  according  to  its  nature ;  and  if  it 
be  a  legislative  power  it  must  be  exercised  with  that  deliberation 
and  discretion  which  are  essential  to  legislative  power. 

The  general  doctrine  of  the  advocates  of  the  resolu- 
tion was  that  the  power  to  make  treaties  was  limited 
to  such  objects  as  were  not  comprehended  and  included 
in  the  specified  powers  given  to  Congress,  or  that  a 
treaty  embracing  such  objects  was  not  valid,  that  is, 
was  not  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  unless  sanctioned 
by  the  House. 

The  advocates  of  the  resolution  also  said  that  this 
was  the  first  time  this  question  had  come  before  the 
House  for  their  determination,  and  that,  whatever 
opinions  might  heretofore  have  been  expressed  by  in- 
dividuals or  by  public  bodies,  these  could  have  little 
weight. 

The  Constitution  having  fixed  no  precise  limits  to 
the  treaty  powers,  the  constructive  limitations  contended 
for  by  the  advocates  of  the  resolution  were  deemed 
totally  inadmissible  by  its  opponents.  If  this  extensive 
power  was  liable  to  abuse  in  the  hands  of  the  President 
and  Senate,  they  remarked  the  same  might  be  said  of 
all  the  general  powers  given  to  Congress.  In  answer 
to  the  limited  construction  given  to  the  words  "  under 


46  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  authority  of  the  United  States,' *  confining  their 
operation  to  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  individual 
States  it  was  said  that  they  referred  to  treaties  already 
made  under  the  Confederation,  as  well  as  those  to  be 
made  under  the  new  Government.  With  respect  to  the 
cooperative  powers  of  Congress  or  of  the  House  in  giv- 
ing validity  to  treaties  it  was  asked  in  what  way  this 
power  was  to  be  exercised?  Congress  could  act  only 
in  their  legislative  capacity,  and  their  sanction  must  be 
given  by  a  law.  This  law  might  be  passed  by  a  bare 
majority  of  both  houses,  and  if  not  approved  by  the 
President  might  still  be  repassed  by  two-thirds  and  be- 
come a  law  without  the  assent  of  the  President. 

According  to  this  doctrine  it  was  also  said  a  treaty 
might  be  sanctioned  without  the  consent  of  two-thirds 
of  the  Senate,  as  a  law  might  be  passed  by  a  bare 
majority  of  the  Senate  and  House  and  be  approved  by 
the  President. 

Washington's  Reply 

This  call  for  executive  papers  with  its  avowed  object 
placed  the  President  in  a  delicate  situation.  Satisfied 
after  mature  reflection  with  regard  to  his  constitutional 
duty  he  did  not  hesitate  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued. 
In  answer  therefore  on  the  30th  of  March  he  sent  to 
the  House  the  following  message,  assigning  his  reasons 
for  not  complying  with  their  request. 

Gentlemen  of  the  House  of  Representatives: 

With  the  utmost  attention  I  have  considered  your  resolution 
of  the  24th  instant,  requesting  me  to  lay  before  your  House  a 
copy  of  the  instructions  to  the  minister  who  negotiated  the  treaty 
with  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  together  with  the  correspondence 
and  other  documents  relative  to  that  treaty,  excepting  such  of 
the  said  papers  as  any  existing  negotiation  may  render  improper 
to  be  disclosed. 

In  deliberating  upon  this  subject  it  was  impossible  to  lose 
sight  of  the  principle  which  some  have  avowed  in  its  discussion, 
or  to  avoid  extending  my  views  to  the  consequences  which  must 
follow  from  the  admission  of  that  principle. 

I  trust  that  no  part  of  my  conduct  has  ever  indicated  a  dis- 
position to  withhold  any  information  which  the  Constitution  has 


JAY'S    TREATY  47 

enjoined  upon  the  President  as  a  duty  to  give,  or  which  could  be 
required  of  him  by  either  House  or  Congress  as  a  right;  and 
with  truth  I  affirm  that  it  has  been,  as  it  will  continue  to  be, 
while  I  have  the  honor  to  preside  in  the  Government,  my  constant 
endeavor  to  harmonize  with  the  other  branches  thereof,  so  far  as 
the  trust  delegated  to  me  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
my  sense  of  the  obligation  it  imposes  "to  preserve,  protect,  and 
defend  the  Constitution, ' '  will  permit. 

The  nature  of  foreign  negotiations  requires  caution ;  and  their 
success  must  often  depend  on  secrecy ;  and,  even  when  brought  to 
a  conclusion,  a  full  disclosure  of  all  the  measures,  demands,  or 
eventual  concessions  which  may  have  been  proposed  or  contem- 
plated would  be  extremely  impolitic ;  for  this  might  have  a  per- 
nicious influence  on  future  negotiations,  or  produce  immediate 
inconveniences,  perhaps  danger  and  mischief,  in  relation  to  other 
powers.  The  necessity  of  such  caution  and  security  was  one 
cogent  reason  for  vesting  the  power  of  making  treaties  with  the 
President,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate ;  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  that  body  was  formed  confining  it  to  a  small  num- 
ber of  members. 

To  admit,  then,  a  right  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  de- 
mand, and  to  have,  as  a  matter  of  course,  all  the  papers  respect- 
ing a  negotiation  with  a  foreign  power  would  be  to  establish  a 
dangerous  precedent. 

It  does  not  occur  that  the  inspection  of  the  papers  asked  for 
can  be  relative  to  any  purpose  under  the  cognizance  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  except  an  impeachment,  which  the  resolution 
has  not  expressed.  I  repeat  that  I  have  no  disposition  to  with- 
hold any  information  which  the  duty  of  my  station  will  permit, 
or  the  public  good  shall  require,  to  be  disclosed ;  and,  in  fact,  all 
the  papers  affecting  the  negotiation  with  Great  Britain  were  laid 
before  the  Senate  when  the  treaty  itself  was  communicated  for 
their  consideration  and  advice. 

The  course  which  the  debate  has  taken  on  the  resolution  of 
the  House  leads  to  some  observations  on  the  mode  of  making 
treaties  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Having 
been  a  member  of  the  general  convention,  and  knowing  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  the  Constitution  was  formed,  I  have  ever  enter- 
tained but  one  opinion  on  this  subject ;  and,  from  the  first  estab- 
lishment of  the  Government  to  this  moment,  my  conduct  has 
exemplified  that  opinion  that  the  power  of  making  treaties  is 
exclusively  vested  in  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  provided  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  present 
concur ;  and  that  every  treaty  so  made  and  promulgated  thence- 


48        GREAT  AMERICAN  DEBATES 

forward  becomes  the  law  of  the  land.  It  is  thus  that  the  treaty- 
making  power  has  been  understood  by  foreign  nations ;  and  in  all 
treaties  made  with  them  we  have  declared,  and  they  have  be- 
lieved, that  when  ratified  by  the  President,  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  they  become  obligatory. 

In  this  construction  of  the  Constitution  every  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives has  heretofore  acquiesced;  and,  until  the  present 
time,  not  a  doubt  or  suspicion  has  appeared,  to  my  knowledge, 
that  this  construction  of  the  Constitution  was  not  the  true  one. 
Nay,  they  have  more  than  acquiesced  j  for  till  now,  without  con- 
troverting the  obligation  of  such  treaties,  they  have  made  all  the 
requisite  provisions  for  carrying  them  into  effect. 

There  is,  also,  reason  to  believe  that  this  construction  agrees 
with  the  opinions  entertained  by  the  State  conventions  when 
they  were  deliberating  on  the  Constitution;  especially  by  those 
who  objected  to  it,  because  there  was  not  required  in  commercial 
treaties  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  the 
members  of  the  Senate,  instead  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senators 
present;  and  because,  in  treaties  respecting  territorial  and  cer- 
tain other  rights  and  claims,  the  concurrence  of  three-fourths  of 
the  whole  number  of  the  members  of  both  Houses  respectively 
was  not  made  necessary.  It  is  a  fact  declared  by  the  general 
convention,  and  universally  understood,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  was  the  result  of  a  spirit  of  amity  and  mutual 
concession.  And  it  is  well  known  that,  under  this  influence,  the 
smaller  States  were  admitted  to  an  equal  representation  in  the 
Senate  with  the  larger  States;  and  that  this  branch  of  the  Gov- 
ernment was  invested  with  great  powers;  for  on  the  equal  par- 
ticipation of  these  powers  the  sovereignty  and  political  safety  of 
the  smaller  States  were  deemed  essentially  to  depend.  If  other 
proofs  than  these  and  the  plain  letter  of  the  Constitution  itself 
be  necessary  to  ascertain  the  point  under  consideration,  they  may 
be  found  in  the  journals  of  the  general  convention,  which  I  have 
deposited  in  the  office  of  the  Department  of  State. 

In  these  journals  it  will  appear  that  a  proposition  was  made 
"that  no  treaty  should  be  binding  on  the  United  States  which 
was  not  ratified  by  a  law,"  and  that  the  proposition  was  ex- 
plicitly rejected. 

As,  therefore,  it  is  perfectly  clear  to  my  understanding  that 
the  assent  of  the  House  of  Representatives  is  not  necessary  to  the 
validity  of  a  treaty,  as  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  exhibits  in 
itself  all  the  objects  requiring  legislative  provision,  and  on  these 
the  papers  called  for  can  throw  no  light ;  and  as  it  is  essential  to 
the  due  administration  of  the  Government  that  the  boundaries 


JAY'S    TREATY  49 

fixed  by  the  Constitution  between  the  different  departments 
should  be  preserved — a  just  regard  to  the  Constitution  and  to  the 
duty  of  my  office  under  all  the  circumstances  of  this  case  forbids 
a  compliance  with  your  request. 

The  House  Maintains  Its  Position 

The  opinion  of  the  President  on  this  important  con- 
stitutional question,  however  satisfactory  it  may  now 
be  to  those  who  examine  it  without  any  particular  bias, 
was  by  no  means  in  accordance  with  that  of  the  House. 
A  resolution  was  submitted  declaring  the  constitutional 
power  of  that  body  in  relation  to  treaties,  and  on  the 
7th  of  April  was  adopted,  57  to  35,  and  entered  on 
the  journals.  After  referring  to  the  section  of  the  Con- 
stitution concerning  treaties  it  declared: 

That  the  House  of  Representatives  do  not  claim  any  agency 
in  making  treaties ;  but  that,  when  a  treaty  stipulates  regulations 
on  any  of  the  subjects  submitted  by  the  Constitution  to  the  power 
of  Congress,  it  must  depend  for  its  execution  as  to  such  stipula- 
tions on  a  law  or  laws  to  be  passed  by  Congress;  and  it  is  the 
constitutional  right  and  duty  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
in  all  such  cases,  to  deliberate  on  the  expediency  or  inexpediency 
of  carrying  such  treaty  into  effect,  and  to  determine  and  act 
thereon,  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  most  conducive  to  the  pub- 
lic good. 

A  second  resolution  was  added,  asserting  that  it  was 
not  necessary  to  the  propriety  of  any  application  from 
the  House  to  the  executive  for  information  desired  by 
them,  and  which  might  relate  to  any  constitutional  func- 
tions of  the  House,  that  the  purposes  for  which  such 
information  might  be  wanted,  or  to  which  it  might  be 
applied,  should  be  stated  in  the  application. 

The  opinion  expressed  in  this  resolution  relative  to 
the  power  of  the  House  regarding  treaties  was  some- 
what equivocal  and  seemed  to  be  confined  to  the  ex- 
pediency  merely  of  making  the  requisite  provision  for 
carrying  them  into  effect  whenever  legislative  aid  was 
necessary  for  that  purpose.1 

1  The  question  regarding  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress  or  of  the 
House,   in   relation   to    treaties,   came   again   before   Congress,   when   the 


50  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  President  during  this  session  had  submitted  to 
the  House  copies  of  the  treaties  with  Spain,  with  the 
Dey  and  Regency  of  Algiers,  and  with  the  Indians  north- 
west of  the  Ohio.  On  the  13th  of  April  a  resolution 
was  submitted  by  Theodore  Sedgwick  [Mass.]  declaring 
that  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  for  carrying  into 
effect  these  treaties  as  well  as  that  with  Great  Britain. 

After  much  altercation  on  the  subject  of  thus  joining 
all  these  treaties  together,  a  division  was  made  and  the 
question  taken  on  each.  The  resolution  was  amended 
by  a  majority  of  eighteen,  so  as  to  read  "that  it  is 
expedient  to  pass  the  laws  necessary  for  carrying  into 
effect,"  etc. 

The  House  Agkees  to  the  Tkeaty 

The  subject  of  the  British  treaty  was  taken  up  on 
the  15th  of  April  and  debated  in  committee  of  the  whole 
until  the  29th  of  the  same  month,  when  the  question 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative  by  the  casting  vote  of 
the  chairman,  F.  A.  C.  Muhlenberg  [Pa.],  who  declared 
he  was  not  satisfied  with  the  resolution  as  it  then  stood, 
but  should  vote  for  it  that  it  might  go  to  the  House  and 
be  there  modified  so  as  to  meet  his  approbation. 

The  next  day  an  amendment  was  proposed  by  Henry 
Dearborn  (Massachusetts)  by  way  of  preamble. 

"  Whereas,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  treaty  is  highly 
objectionable,  and  may  prove  injurious  to  the  United  States ;  yet 
considering  all  circumstances  relating  thereto,  and,  particularly, 
that  the  last  eighteen  articles  are  to  continue  in  force  only  dur- 
ing the  present  war,  and  two  years  thereafter;  and  confiding, 
also,  in  the  efficiency  of  measures  which  may  be  taken  for  bring- 

commercial  treaty  or  convention  with  Great  Britain  of  July,  1815,  was 
laid  before  that  body  by  the  President.  The  House  at  first  differed  with 
the  Senate  as  to  the  form  of  a  law  for  carrying  into  effect  that  part  of  the 
convention  which  stipulated  an  equality  of  duties  in  certain  cases.  The 
House  at  first  passed  a  bill  equalizing  the  duties  without  referring  to  the 
convention. 

The  Senate  negatived  this,  and  passed  a  declaratory  bill,  to  which,  after 
a  conference,  the  House  agreed  100  to  35.  This  bill  merely  '*  enacted  and 
declared  that  so  much  of  any  act  as  imposes  a  higher  duty  of  tonnage  or 
of  impost  on  vessels  and  articles  imported  in  vessels  of  the  United  States, 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  convention,  should  be  deemed  and  taken 
to  be  of  no  force  and  effect." 


JAY'S    TREATY  51 

ing  about  a  discontinuance  of  the  violations  committed  on  our 
neutral  rights,  in  regard  to  vessels  and  seamen,  therefore, ' '  etc. 

After  striking  out  the  words  "highly  objectionable, 
and  may  prove  injurious  to  the  United  States/ '  the 
preamble  was  negatived,  50  to  49,  and  the  resolution  as 
reported  to  the  House  passed,  51  to  48,  and  bills  ordered 
to  be  prepared  accordingly. 


Ageeement  of  the  House  to  the  Treaty 

House  op  Representatives,  April  15-29,  1796 

Those  in  favor  of  the  treaty  seemed  not  disposed  to 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  its  merits,  alleging  that  every 
member  had  made  up  his  mind  on  the  subject,  and  that 
dispatch  was  necessary  in  case  the  treaty  was  carried 
into  effect.  The  posts  were  to  be  delivered  up  on  the 
first  of  June,  and  this  required  previous  arrangements 
on  the  part  of  the  American  Government. 

William  V.  Murray  [Md.]  said  "that  the  subject  was  com- 
pletely understood,  both  by  the  House  and  country,  and  the 
time  was  so  extremely  pressing  that  the  execution  of  the  treaty 
was  more  valuable  than  any  explanation  which  members  could 
give.  The  country  requires  of  us  at  this  crisis  acts,  not 
speeches." 

William  B.  Giles  [Va.],  in  opposition,  said: 
1  *  I  had  hoped  that  a  question  which  had  already  produced  so 
much  agitation  would  be  taken  up  and  decided  upon  in  a  manner 
suitable  to  its  importance. '  *  He  thought  it  would  not  be  treat- 
ing the  public  mind  with  a  sufficient  degree  of  respect  to  take  a 
hasty  vote  upon  the  subject.  He  did  not  think  that  gentlemen 
in  favor  of  the  treaty  would  have  wished  to  have  got  rid  of  it  in 
this  way.  He  avowed  he  could  not  discover  those  merits  in  the 
treaty  which  other  gentlemen  cried  up;  but  he  pledged  himself 
that,  if  they  would  convince  him  the  treaty  was  a  good  one,  he 
would  vote  for  it.  He  was  desirous  of  knowing  in  what  latent 
corner  its  good  features  lay,  as  he  had  not  been  able  to  find  them. 
He  thought  he  should  be  able  to  show  features  in  it  which  were 
not  calculated  for  the  good,  but  for  the  mischief,  of  the  country. 
He  hoped,  therefore,  the  committee  would  rise  and  suffer  a 
proper  discussion. 


y 


52  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Mr.  Murray,  in  reply,  M  would  vote  for  the  committee  to  rise, 
as  he  despaired  of  taking  a  vote  or  hearing  a  word  said  to-day  on 
the  merits  of  the  resolution  offered.  Gentlemen  will,  of  course, 
come  prepared,  and  he  trusted  that  however  terrible  the  treaty 
may  have  struck  them  in  the  dark,  a  little  discussion  might  di- 
minish their  horrors.  He  could  not,  however,  suppress  his  sur- 
prise that  none  of  those,  and  in  particular  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  [Mr.  Giles],  who  had  entertained  opinions  so  hostile  to 
this  treaty  so  long  should  be  at  a  loss  to  enter  on  its  discussion 
with  an  eagerness  proportioned  to  their  zeal  and  conviction  of 
its  mighty  faults.  But  the  gentleman,  it  seems,  has  left  his 
paints  and  brushes  at  home,  and  cannot  now  attempt,  though  the 
canvas  is  before  him,  to  give  us  those  features  of  the  treaty  which 
had  been  so  caricatured  out  of  doors.  He  would  agree  that  the 
committee  should  rise,  hoping  that  the  delay  was  owing  to  an 
aversion  to  do  mischief,  and  relying  on  the  effects  of  a  night's 
reflection;  the  pillow  is  the  friend  of  conscience." 

With  a  temper  and  with  feelings  thns  indicated  the 
House  entered  upon  the  discussion  of  this  interesting 
and  important  subject. 

In  this  debate  not  only  the  constitutional  powers  of 
the  House  in  relation  to  treaties  were  again  discussed, 
but  every  article  and  every  clause  in  the  treaty  examined 
and  its  merits  and  demerits  developed.  The  arguments 
on  both  sides  were  pushed  to  an  extreme  and  partook 
not  a  little  of  personal  as  well  as  political  feelings. 

The  objections  of  those  opposed  to  carrying  the 
treaty  into  effect  were  generally  that  it  wanted  reci- 
procity— that  it  gave  up  all  claim  of  compensation  for 
negroes  carried  away  contrary  to  the  treaty  of  peace 
and  for  the  detention  of  the  Western  posts ;  that  it  con- 
travened the  French  treaty  and  sacrificed  the  interest  of 
an  ally  to  that  of  Great  Britain;  that  it  gave  up  in 
several  important  instances  the  law  of  nations,  particu- 
larly in  relation  to  free  ships  making  free  goods,  cases 
of  blockade,  and  contraband  of  war ;  that  it  improperly 
interfered  with  the  legislative  powers  of  Congress, 
especially  by  prohibiting  the  sequestration  of  debts,  and 
that  the  commercial  part  gave  few  if  any  advantages  to 
the  United  States. 

On  the  other  hand  it  was  urged  that  the  treaty  had 


JAY'S    TREATY  53 

been  constitutionally  made  and  promulgated,  that  a  re- 
gard to  public  faith  and  the  best  interests  of  the  country 
under  all  circumstances  required  it  should  be  carried 
into  effect,  although  not  in  all  respects  perfectly  satis- 
factory ;  that  it  settled  disputes  between  the  two  govern- 
ments of  a  long  standing,  of  a  very  interesting  nature, 
and  which  it  was  particularly  important  for  the  United 
States  to  bring  to  a  close;  that  provision  also  was  made 
for  a  settlement  of  those  of  more  recent  date,  not  less 
affecting  the  sensibility  as  well  as  honor  of  the  country, 
and  in  which  the  commercial  part  of  the  community  had 
a  deep  interest;  that  in  no  case  had  the  law  of  nations 
been  given  up;  that  the  question  as  to  provisions  being 
contraband,  although  not  settled,  was  left  as  before  the 
treaty ;  that  the  conventional  rights  of  France  were  saved 
by  an  express  clause,  and  as  to  the  sequestration  of 
private  debts  it  was  said  this  was  contrary  to  every 
principle  of  morality  and  good  faith,  and  ought  never 
to  take  place;  that  the  commercial  part  would  probably 
be  mutually  beneficial  was  a  matter  of  experiment,  and 
was  to  continue  only  two  years  after  the  close  of  the  war 
in  Europe.  That  in  fine  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  the  only  choice  left  was  treaty  or  war. 

No  question  in  Congress  had  ever  elicited  more 
talents  or  created  greater  solicitude  than  this.  The 
loss  of  national  character  from  a  breach  of  plighted 
faith  was  strongly  urged  by  those  who  believed  the 
House  bound  to  carry  the  treaty  into  effect.  Should 
the  treaty  be  rejected,  war,  it  was  also  said,  could  not 
be  avoided  consistently  with  the  character  and  honor  of 
the  American  nation.  The  Western  posts  would  be  re- 
tained, the  Indians  again  placed  under  the  control  of 
the  British,  millions  unjustly  taken  from  the  merchants 
would  be  lost,  and  perhaps  as  many  millions  more  added 
by  future  spoliations;  redress  for  past,  and  security 
against  future,  injuries  must,  it  was  said,  be  obtained 
either  by  treaty  or  by  war.  It  was  impossible  that  the 
American  people  could  sit  down  quietly  without  an  effort 
to  right  themselves. 

On  these  topics  all  the  talents  and  all  the  eloquence 
of  the  advocates  of  the  treaty  were  exerted  and  dis- 


54       GREAT  AMERICAN  DEBATES 

played.  Mr.  Ames  in  particular  exceeded  all  his  pre- 
vious forensic  efforts.  From  the  peroration  which  dealt 
with  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare  which  might  be  ex- 
pected if  the  treaty  were  rejected,  his  address  received 
the  name  of  the  "Tomahawk  Speech." 

Rainbow  of  Peace  oe  Meteor  of  War? 

Speech  of  Fisher  Ames,  M.  C,  on  Ratification  or  Rejection 
of  Jay's  Treaty 

By  rejecting  the  posts  we  light  the  savage  fires,  we  bind  the 
victims.  This  day  we  undertake  to  render  account  to  the  widows 
and  orphans  whom  our  decision  will  make,  to  the  wretches  that 
will  be  roasted  at  the  stake,  to  our  country,  and,  I  do  not  deem  it 
too  serious  to  say,  to  conscience  and  to  God.  We  are  answerable, 
and  if  duty  be  anything  more  than  a  word  of  imposture,  if  con- 
science be  not  a  bugbear,  we  are  preparing  to  make  ourselves  as 
wretched  as  our  country.  There  is  no  mistake  in  this  case,  there 
can  be  none.  Experience  has  already  been  the  prophet  of  events, 
and  the  cries  of  our  future  victims  have  already  reached  us. 
The  voice  of  humanity  issues  from  the  shade  of  their  wilderness. 
It  exclaims  that  while  one  hand  is  held  up  to  rejeet  the  treaty 
the  other  grasps  a  tomahawk.  It  summons  our  imagination  to 
the  scenes  that  will  open.  It  is  no  great  effort  of  the  imagination 
to  conceive  that  events  so  near  are  already  begun.  I  fancy  that 
I  listen  to  the  yells  of  savage  vengeance,  and  the  shrieks  of  tor- 
ture. Already  they  seem  to  sigh  in  the  western  wind — already 
they  mingle  with  every  echo  from  the  mountains. 

After  adverting  to  other  probable  and  almost  cer- 
tain consequences  of  a  rejection  of  the  treaty — dissen- 
sions between  the  different  branches  of  the  Government 
— war  abroad  and  anarchy  at  home — the  orator  reverses 
the  picture : 

Let  me  cheer  the  mind,  weary,  no  doubt,  and  ready  to  de- 
spond, on  this  prospect,  by  presenting  another  which  it  is  yet  in 
our  power  to  realize.  Is  it  possible  for  a  real  American  to  look 
at  the  prosperity  of  this  country  without  some  desire  for  its  con- 
tinuance, without  some  respect  for  the  measures  which  many 
will  say  produced,  and,  all  will  confess,  have  preserved  it  ?  Will 
he  not  feel  some  dread  that  a  change  of  system  will  reverse  the 
scene?     The  well-grounded  fears  of  our  citizens  in  1794  were 


JAY'S    TREATY  55 

removed  by  the  treaty,  but  are  not  forgotten.  Then  they  deemed 
war  nearly  inevitable,  and  would  not  this  adjustment  have  been 
considered  at  that  day  as  a  happy  escape  from  the  calamity  1 

The  great  interest  and  general  desire  of  our  people  were  to 
enjoy  the  advantage  of  neutrality.  This  instrument,  however 
misrepresented,  affords  America  that  inestimable  security.  The 
causes  of  our  disputes  are  either  cut  up  by  the  roots  or  referred 
to  a  new  negotiation  after  the  end  of  the  European  war.  This 
was  gaining  everything,  because  it  confirmed  our  neutrality,  by 
which  our  citizens  are  gaining  everything.  This  alone  would 
justify  the  engagements  of  the  Government.  For  when  the  fiery 
vapors  of  the  war  lowered  in  the  skirts  of  our  horizon  all  our 
wishes  were  concentrated  in  this  one,  that  we  might  escape  the 
desolation  of  this  storm.  This  treaty,  like  a  rainbow  on  the  edge 
of  the  cloud,  marked  to  our  eyes  the  space  where  it  was  raging, 
and  afforded  at  the  same  time  the  sure  prognostic  of  fair 
weather.  If  we  reject  it  the  vivid  colors  will  grow  pale,  it  will 
be  a  baleful  meteor,  portending  tempest  and  war. 


The  speech  of  Mr.  Ames,  though  delivered  at  nearly 
the  close  of  this  debate,  was  listened  to  by  the  House 
and  by  a  crowded  audience  with  a  most  silent  and  nntired 
attention.  Its  eloquence  was  admired  by  all,  though 
its  effects  were  dreaded  by  some. 

In  deference  to  this  dread,  the  question  was  post- 
poned until  the  following  day. 

The  delay  occasioned  by  these  debates  had  been 
favorable  to  the  treaty.  It  gave  time  for  reflection 
among  those  opposed,  and  also  afforded  an  opportunity 
for  an  expression  of  their  sentiments  by  others  who  had 
hitherto  been  silent,  willing  to  leave  the  decision  with 
the  constituted  authorities.  Alexander  Hamilton,  Rufus 
King,  and  John  Jay  wrote  a  series  of  letters,  thirty-five 
in  number,  signed  i  l  Camillus, ' '  in  defence  of  the  treaty, 
which  operated  powerfully  to  influence  the  public  mind 
in  its  favor.  Madison  was  eager  to  enter  into  the  lists 
against  these  letters,  of  which  it  was  clearly  evident  that 
Hamilton  was,  if  not  the  sole  author,  at  least  the  domi- 
nating spirit.  Jefferson,  however,  dissuaded  him  from 
the  attempt,  saying  that  any  reply  to  the  defence  of  the 
treaty  by  the  Federalist  "colossus"  would  in  the  end 
redound  to  the  acceptance  of  his  arguments.    The  great 


56  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

mass  of  the  people  began  seriously  to  reflect  on  the  con- 
sequences of  the  treaty's  rejection,  nor  could  they  be 
induced  to  believe  that  the  President,  who  had  once  saved 
his  country  from  the  tyranny  of  Great  Britain,  had  now 
sacrificed  its  best  interests  to  the  same  power.  During 
the  discussion  therefore  numerous  petitions  were  pre- 
sented to  the  House  from  different  parts  of  the  Union, 
praying  that  the  treaty  might  be  carried  into  effect. 
This  changed  the  votes  if  not  the  opinions  of  some  of 
the  members,  and  when  the  question  was  finally  put  it 
was  decided  in  favor  of  the  treaty.  This  action  probably 
saved  the  United  States  from  being  involved  in  the  war 
which  then  and  so  long  afterwards  desolated  Europe. 


Mfcfi  Jcvi 


CHAPTER  in 

The  Breach  with  France 

France's  Displeasure  over  Jay's  Treaty — French  Directory  Orders  Minister 
Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  to  Leave  the  Country — Washington's 
Farewell  Address:  "No  Entangling  Foreign  Alliances" — President 
John  Adams  Proposes  Arming  of  Merchant  Vessels — Richard  Sprigg, 
Jr.  [Md.]  Introduces  Peace  Resolutions  in  the  House — Debate:  in 
Favor,  Abraham  Baldwin  [Ga.],  William  B.  Giles  [Ga.],  John  Nich- 
olas [Va.],  Albert  Gallatin  [Pa.],  Edward  Livingston  [N.  Y.];  Op- 
posed, Samuel  Sitgreaves  [Pa.],  Harrison  Gray  Otis  [Mass.],  Jona- 
than Dayton  [N.  J.],  Robert  G.  Harper  [S.  C],  John  Rutledge,  Jr. 
[S.  C],  Samuel  Sewall  [Mass.],  Samuel  W.  Dana  [Ct.l,  Nathaniel 
Smith  [Ct.],  John  Williams  [N.  Y.],  Thomas  Pinckney  [S.  C],  John 
Allen  [Ct.],  James  A.  Bayard,  Sr.  [Del.] — Another  Embassy  Is  Sent 
to  France — A  Treaty  Is  Signed  and  Ratified. 

IN  February,  1796,  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  informed  the  American  minister  to  that 
country,  James  Monroe,  that  the  Directory  con- 
sidered the  alliance  between  France  and  the  United 
States  at  an  end  from  the  moment  that  the  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  was  ratified,  and  intimated  that  a  special 
envoy  would  be  sent  to  announce  this  to  the  American 
Government.  On  the  2nd  of  July  the  Directory  issued 
their  celebrated  decree,  that ' '  all  neutral  or  allied  powers 
shall,  without  delay,  be  notified  that  the  flag  of  the 
French  Republic  will  treat  neutral  vessels,  either  as  to 
confiscation,  as  to  searches,  or  capture,  in  the  same 
manner  as  they  shall  suffer  the  English  to  treat  them." 

Secret  orders  to  capture  American  vessels  had  prob- 
ably been  sent  to  the  West  Indies  previous  to  this,  as  in 
June  preceding  a  valuable  ship  called  the  Mount  Vernon 
was  captured  off  the  capes  of  Delaware  by  a  privateer 
from  St.  Domingo,  commissioned  by  the  French  Republic. 

The  nations  in  Europe  under  the  influence  of  France 
were  required  about  the  same  time  to  pursue  a  similar 
conduct  toward  the  Americans. 

57 


58  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

France  and  Spain,  on  the  19th  of  August,  1796,  con- 
cluded a  treaty  of  alliance,  offensive  and  defensive. 
This  treaty  contained  a  mutual  guaranty  of  all  the 
states,  territories,  islands,  and  places  which  they  re- 
spectively possessed,  or  should  possess.  France  at  this 
time  was  also  contemplating  obtaining  from  Spain 
Louisiana  and  the  Floridas. 

Washington  was  dissatisfied  with  the  conduct  of  the 
American  minister  in  France,  particularly  in  delaying  to 
present  to  the  French  Government  an  explanation  of  the 
Administration's  views  in  concluding  a  treaty  with 
Great  Britain.  So  he  recalled  Monroe,  and  appointed 
Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  of  South  Carolina  to  suc- 
ceed him.  But  when  Mr.  Pinckney 's  credentials  were 
laid  before  the  Directory  he  was  informed  through  Mr. 
Monroe  that  the  French  Government  would  "no  longer 
recognize  a  minister  plenipotentiary  from  the  United 
States  until  after  a  reparation  of  the  grievances  de- 
manded of  the  American  Government,  and  which  the 
French  Republic  has  a  right  to  expect.' '  Mr.  Pinckney 
was  permitted  to  reside  at  Paris  until  about  the  first 
of  February,  1797,  when  the  Directory  gave  him  written 
orders  to  quit  the  territories  of  the  Republic. 

In  September,  1796,  President  Washington,  in  declin- 
ing another  election,  had  for  the  last  time  addressed 
his  fellow  citizens  on  subjects  which  he  deemed  highly 
important  and  intimately  connected  with  their  future 
political  welfare.1 

"No  Entangling  Foeeign  Alliances" 

Washington's  fakewell  address 

The  unity  of  government  which  constitutes  you  one  people  is 
also  now  dear  to  you.  It  is  justly  so,  for  it  is  a  main  pillar  in  the 
edifice  of  your  real  independence,  the  support  of  your  tranquil- 

1  James  Madison  stated  that  President  Washington,  four  years  before 
this,  had  submitted  to  him  certain  sentiments  which  he  wished  Madison  to 
incorporate  in  a  "farewell  address,"  Washington  at  that  time  contem- 
plating refusal  to  serve  a  second  term  as  President.  Accordingly  Madison 
I surmised  that  the  President  had  called  some  one  to  render  him  a  similar 
service  in  1796 — and  opined  that  this  was  Alexander  Hamilton,  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury. 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       59 

ity  at  home,  your  peace  abroad,  of  your  safety,  of  your  pros- 
perity, of  that  very  liberty  which  you  so  highly  prize.  But  as  it 
is  easy  to  foresee  that  from  different  causes  and  from  different 
quarters  much  pains  will  be  taken,  many  artifices  employed,  to 
weaken  in  your  minds  the  conviction  of  this  truth ;  as  this  is  the 
point  in  your  political  fortress  against  which  the  batteries  of 
internal  and  external  enemies  will  be  most  constantly  and  ac- 
tively (though  often  covertly  and  insidiously)  directed,  it  is  of 
infinite  moment  that  you  should  properly  estimate  the  immense 
value  of  your  national  union  to  your  collective  and  individual 
happiness;  that  you  should  cherish  a  cordial,  habitual,  and  im- 
movable attachment  to  it;  accustoming  yourselves  to  think  and 
speak  of  it  as  of  the  palladium  of  your  political  safety  and  pros- 
perity, watching  for  its  preservation  with  jealous  anxiety;  dis- 
countenancing whatever  may  suggest  even  a  suspicion  that  it  can 
in  any  event  be  abandoned ;  and  indignantly  frowning  upon  the 
first  dawning  of  every  attempt  to  alienate  any  portion  of  our 
country  from  the  rest,  or  to  enfeeble  the  sacred  ties  which  now 
link  together  the  various  parts. 

For  this  you  have  every  inducement  of  sympathy  and  inter- 
est. Citizens,  by  birth  or  choice,  of  a  common  country,  that 
country  has  a  right  to  concentrate  your  affections.  The  name  of 
American,  which  belongs  to  you  in  your  national  capacity,  must 
always  exalt  the  just  pride  of  patriotism  more  than  any  appella- 
tion derived  from  local  discriminations.  With  slight  shades  of 
difference  you  have  the  same  religion,  manners,  habits,  and  po- 
litical principles.  You  have,  in  a  common  cause,  fought  and 
triumphed  together;  the  independence  and  liberty  you  possess 
are  the  work  of  joint  councils  and  joint  efforts,  of  common  dan- 
gers, sufferings,  and  successes. 

But  these  considerations,  however  powerfully  they  address 
themselves  to  your  sensibility,  are  greatly  outweighed  by  those 
which  apply  more  immediately  to  your  interest.  Here  every  por- 
tion of  our  country  finds  the  most  commanding  motives  for  care- 
fully guarding  and  preserving  the  union  of  the  whole. 

The  North,  in  an  unrestrained  intercourse  with  the  South, 
protected  by  the  equal  laws  of  a  common  government,  finds,  in 
the  productions  of  the  latter,  great  additional  resources  of  mari- 
time and  commercial  enterprise,  and  precious  materials  of  manu- 
facturing industry.  The  South,  in  the  same  intercourse,  bene- 
fiting by  the  agency  of  the  North,  sees  its  agriculture  grow  and 
its  commerce  expand.  Turning  partly  into  its  own  channels  the 
seamen  of  the  North,  it  finds  its  particular  navigation  invig- 
orated; and  while  it  contributes,  in  different  ways,  to  nourish 


60  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

and  increase  the  general  mass  of  the  national  navigation,  it  looks 
forward  to  the  protection  of  a  maritime  strength  to  which  itself 
is  unequally  adapted.  The  East,  in  like  intercourse  with  the 
West,  already  finds,  and  in  the  progressive  improvement  of  in- 
terior communications,  by  land  and  water,  will  more  and  more 
find,  a  valuable  vent  for  the  commodities  which  it  brings  from 
abroad  or  manufactures  at  home.  The  West  derives  from  the 
East  supplies  requisite  to  its  growth  and  comfort,  and,  what  is 
perhaps  of  still  greater  consequence,  it  must  of  necessity  owe  the 
secure  enjoyment  of  indispensable  outlets  for  its  own  produc- 
tions to  the  weight,  influence,  and  the  future  maritime  strength 
of  the  Atlantic  side  of  the  Union,  directed  by  an  indissoluble 
community  of  interest  as  one  nation.  Any  other  tenure,  by 
which  the  West  can  hold  this  essential  advantage,  whether  de- 
rived from  its  own  separate  strength,  or  from  an  apostate  and 
unnatural  connection  with  any  foreign  power,  must  be  intrin- 
sically precarious. 

While,  then,  every  part  of  our  country  thus  feels  an  immedi- 
ate and  particular  interest  in  union,  all  the  parts  combined  can- 
not fail  to  find,  in  the  united  mass  of  means  and  efforts,  greater 
strength,  greater  resource,  proportionably  greater  security  from 
external  danger,  a  less  frequent  interruption  of  their  peace  by 
foreign  nations;  and,  what  is  of  inestimable  value,  they  must 
derive  from  union  an  exemption  from  those  broils  and  wars  be- 
tween themselves  which  so  frequently  afflict  neighboring  coun- 
tries, not  tied  together  by  the  same  government,  which  their  own 
rivalships  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  produce,  but  which  oppo- 
site foreign  alliances,  attachments,  and  intrigues  would  stimu- 
late and  embitter.  Hence,  likewise,  they  will  avoid  the  necessity 
of  those  overgrown  military  establishments  which,  under  any 
form  of  government,  are  inauspicious  to  liberty,  and  which  are 
to  be  regarded  as  particularly  hostile  to  republican  liberty.  In 
this  sense  it  is  that  your  Union  ought  to  be  considered  as  a  main 
prop  of  your  liberty,  and  that  the  love  of  the  one  ought  to  en- 
dear to  you  the  preservation  of  the  other. 

These  considerations  speak  a  persuasive  language  to  every 
reflecting  and  virtuous  mind,  and  exhibit  the  continuance  of  the 
Union  as  a  primary  object  of  patriotic  desire.  Is  there  a  doubt 
whether  a  common  government  can  embrace  so  large  a  sphere? 
Let  experience  solve  it.  To  listen  to  mere  speculation,  in  such  a 
case,  were  criminal.  We  are  authorized  to  hope  that  a  proper 
organization  of  the  whole,  with  the  auxiliary  agency  of  govern- 
ments for  the  respective  subdivisions,  will  afford  a  happy  issue 
to  the  experiment.     'Tis  well  worth  a  fair  and  full  experiment. 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       61 

With  such  powerful  and  obvious  motives  to  union,  affecting  all 
parts  of  our  country,  while  experience  shall  not  have  demon- 
strated its  impracticability,  there  will  always  be  reason  to  dis- 
trust the  patriotism  of  those  who,  in  any  quarter,  may  endeavor 
to  weaken  its  bands. 

In  contemplating  the  causes  which  may  disturb  our  Union, 
it  occurs,  as  a  matter  of  serious  concern,  that  any  ground  should 
have  been  furnished  for  characterizing  parties  by  geographical 
discriminations — Northern  and  Southern,  Atlantic  and  Western 
— whence  designing  men  may  endeavor  to  excite  a  belief  that 
there  is  a  real  difference  of  local  interests  and  views.  One  of  the 
expedients  of  party  to  acquire  influence  within  particular  dis- 
tricts is  to  misrepresent  the  opinions  and  aims  of  other  districts. 
You  cannot  shield  yourselves  too  much  against  the  jealousies 
and  heart-burnings  which  spring  from  these  misrepresentations ; 
they  tend  to  render  alien  to  each  other  those  who  ought  to  be 
bound  together  by  fraternal  affection.     .     .     . 

To  the  efficacy  and  permanency  of  your  Union  a  government 
for  the  whole  is  indispensable.  No  alliances,  however  strict,  be- 
tween the  parts,  can  be  an  adequate  substitute;  they  must  in- 
evitably experience  the  infractions  and  interruptions  which 
alliances,  in  all  times,  have  experienced.  Sensible  of  this  mo- 
mentous truth,  you  have  improved  upon  your  first  essay  by  the 
adoption  of  a  Constitution  of  government  better  calculated  than 
your  former  for  an  intimate  union,  and  for  the  efficacious  man- 
agement of  your  common  concerns.  This  government,  the  off- 
spring of  our  own  choice,  uninfluenced  and  unawed,  adopted 
upon  full  investigation  and  mature  deliberation,  completely  free 
in  its  principles,  in  the  distribution  of  its  powers,  uniting  se- 
curity with  energy,  and  containing  within  itself  a  provision  for 
its  own  amendment,  has  a  just  claim  to  your  confidence  and  your 
support.  Respect  for  its  authority,  compliance  with  its  laws, 
acquiescence  in  its  measures,  are  duties  enjoined  by  the  funda- 
mental maxims  of  true  liberty.  The  basis  of  our  political  sys- 
tems is  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  and  to  alter  the  consti- 
tutions of  government.  But  the  Constitution,  which  at  any  time 
exists,  until  changed  by  an  explicit  and  authentic  act  of  the 
whole  people,  is  sacredly  obligatory  upon  all.  The  very  idea  of 
the  power  and  the  right  of  the  people  to  establish  a  government 
presupposes  the  duty  of  every  individual  to  obey  the  established 
government. 

All  obstructions  to  the  execution  of  the  laws,  all  combinations 
and  associations,  under  whatever  plausible  character,  with  the 
real  design  to  direct,  control,  counteract,  or  awe  the  regular  de- 


62  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

liberation  and  action  of  the  constituted  authorities,  are  destruc- 
tive of  this  fundamental  principle,  and  of  fatal  tendency.  They 
serve  to  organize  faction,  to  give  it  an  artificial  and  extraordi- 
nary force,  to  put  in  the  place  of  the  delegated  will  of  the  na- 
tion the  will  of  a  party,  often  a  small,  but  artful  and  enterpris- 
ing minority  of  the  community ;  and,  according  to  the  alternate 
triumphs  of  different  parties,  to  make  the  public  administration 
the  mirror  of  the  ill-concerted  and  incongruous  projects  of  fac- 
tion, rather  than  the  organ  of  consistent  and  wholesome  plans, 
digested  by  common  councils,  and  modified  by  mutual  interests. 

However  combinations  or  associations  of  the  above  descrip- 
tion may  now  and  then  answer  popular  ends,  they  are  likely,  in 
the  course  of  time  and  things,  to  become  potent  engines,  by 
which  cunning,  ambitious,  and  unprincipled  men  will  be  enabled 
to  subvert  the  power  of  the  people,  and  to  usurp  for  themselves 
the  reins  of  government ;  destroying  afterward  the  very  engines 
which  have  lifted  them  to  unjust  dominion. 

Toward  the  preservation  of  your  Government  and  the  per- 
manency of  your  present  happy  state,  it  is  requisite,  not  only 
that  you  speedily  discountenance  irregular  opposition  to  its  ac- 
knowledged authority,  but  also  that  you  resist  with  care  the 
spirit  of  innovation  upon  its  principles,  however  specious  the 
pretexts.  One  method  of  assault  may  be  to  effect,  in  the  forms 
of  the  Constitution,  alterations  which  will  impair  the  energy  of 
the  system,  and  thus  to  undermine  what  cannot  be  directly  over- 
thrown. In  all  the  changes  to  which  you  may  be  invited  remem- 
ber that  time  and  habit  are  at  least  as  necessary  to  fix  the  true 
character  of  governments  as  of  other  human  institutions;  that 
experience  is  the  surest  standard  by  which  to  test  the  real  ten- 
dency of  the  existing  constitution  of  a  country ;  that  facility  in 
changes,  upon  the  credit  of  mere  hypothesis  and  opinion,  exposes 
to  perpetual  change,  from  the  endless  variety  of  hypothesis  and 
opinion.  And  remember,  especially,  that  for  the  efficient  man- 
agement of  your  common  interests,  in  a  country  so  extensive  as 
ours,  a  government  of  as  much  vigor  as  is  consistent  with  the  per- 
fect security  of  liberty  is  indispensable.  Liberty  itself  will  find 
in  such  a  government,  with  powers  properly  distributed  and 
adjusted,  its  surest  guardian.  It  is,  indeed,  little  else  than  a 
name,  where  the  government  is  too  feeble  to  withstand  the  en- 
terprises of  faction ;  to  confine  each  member  of  society  within  the 
limits  prescribed  by  the  laws,  and  to  maintain  all  in  the  secure 
and  tranquil  enjoyment  of  the  rights  of  person  and  property. 

I  have  already  intimated  to  you  the  danger  of  parties  in  the 
State,  with  particular  reference  to  the  founding  of  them  on  geo- 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       63 

graphical  discrimination.  Let  me  now  take  a  more  comprehen- 
sive view,  and  warn  you,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  against  the 
baneful  effects  of  the  spirit  of  party,  generally. 

This  spirit,  unfortunately,  is  inseparable  from  our  nature, 
having  its  root  in  the  strongest  passions  of  the  human  mind.  It 
exists  under  different  shapes,  in  all  governments,  more  or  less 
stifled,  controlled,  or  repressed.  But  in  those  of  the  popular 
form  it  is  seen  in  its  greatest  rankness,  and  is  truly  their  worst 
enemy. 

The  alternate  domination  of  one  faction  over  another,  sharp- 
ened by  the  spirit  of  revenge,  natural  to  party  dissensions,  which, 
in  different  ages  and  countries,  has  perpetrated  the  most  horrid 
enormities,  is  itself  a  frightful  despotism.  But  this  leads,  at 
length,  to  a  more  formal  and  permanent  despotism.  The  dis- 
orders and  miseries,  which  result,  gradually  incline  the  minds  of 
men  to  seek  security  and  repose  in  the  absolute  power  of  an  in- 
dividual; and  sooner  or  later  the  chief  of  some  prevailing  fac- 
tion, more  able  or  more  fortunate  than  his  competitors,  turns 
this  disposition  to  the  purposes  of  his  own  elevation  on  the  ruins 
of  public  liberty. 

Without  looking  forward  to  an  extremity  of  this  kind  (which, 
nevertheless,  ought  not  to  be  entirely  out  of  sight)  the  common 
and  continual  mischiefs  of  the  spirit  of  party  are  sufficient  to 
make  it  the  interest  and  duty  of  a  wise  people  to  discourage  and 
restrain  it. 

It  serves  always  to  distract  the  public  councils,  and  enfeeble 
the  public  administration.  It  agitates  the  community  with  ill- 
founded  jealousies  and  false  alarms ;  kindles  the  animosity  of  one 
part  against  another ;  foments  occasionally  riot  and  insurrection. 
It  opens  the  door  to  foreign  influence  and  corruption,  which 
finds  a  facilitated  access  to  the  government  itself,  through  the 
channels  of  party  passion.  Thus  the  policy  and  the  will  of  one 
country  are  subjected  to  the  policy  and  will  of  another. 

There  is  an  opinion  that  parties,  in  free  countries,  are  useful 
checks  upon  the  administration  of  the  government,  and  serve  to 
keep  alive  the  spirit  of  liberty.  This,  within  certain  limits,  is 
probably  true ;  and,  in  governments  of  a  monarchical  cast,  patri- 
otism may  look  with  indulgence,  if  not  with  favor,  upon  the 
spirit  of  party.  But  in  those  of  popular  character,  in  govern- 
ments purely  elective,  it  is  a  spirit  not  to  be  encouraged.  From 
their  natural  tendency  it  is  certain  there  will  always  be  enough 
of  that  spirit  for  every  salutary  purpose.  And,  there  being  con- 
stant danger  of  excess,  the  effort  ought  to  be,  by  force  of  public 
opinion,  to  mitigate  and  assuage  it.    A  fire  not  to  be  quenched, 


64  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

it  demands  a  uniform  vigilance  to  prevent  its  bursting  into  a 
flame,  lest,  instead  of  warming,  it  should  consume. 

It  is  important,  likewise,  that  the  habits  of  thinking,  in  a 
free  country  should  inspire  caution  in  those  intrusted  with  its 
administration  to  confine  themselves  within  their  respective  con- 
stitutional spheres,  avoiding,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  one 
department,  to  encroach  upon  another.  The  spirit  of  encroach- 
ment tends  to  consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the  departments  in 
one,  and  thus  to  create,  whatever  the  form  of  government,  a  real 
despotism.  A  just  estimate  of  that  love  of  power,  and  proneness 
to  abuse  it,  which  predominate  in  the  human  heart  is  sufficient 
to  satisfy  us  of  the  truth  of  this  position.  The  necessity  of  recip- 
rocal checks  in  the  exercise  of  political  power,  by  dividing  and 
distributing  it  into  different  depositaries,  and  constituting  each 
the  guardian  of  the  public  weal  against  invasion  by  the  other, 
has  been  evinced  by  experiments  ancient  and  modern:  some  of 
them  in  our  country,  and  under  our  own  eyes.  To  preserve  them 
must  be  as  necessary  as  to  institute  them.  If,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  people,  the  distribution  or  modification  of  the  constitutional 
powers  be,  in  any  particular,  wrong,  let  it  be  corrected  by  an 
amendment  in  the  way  which  the  Constitution  designates.  But 
let  there  be  no  change  by  usurpation ;  for  though  this,  in  one  in- 
stance, may  be  the  instrument  of  good,  it  is  the  customary 
weapon  by  which  free  governments  are  destroyed.  The  prece- 
dent must  always  greatly  overbalance,  in  permanent  evil,  any 
partial  or  transient  benefit  which  the  use  can  at  any  time  yield. 

Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead  to  political 
prosperity  religion  and  morality  are  indispensable  supports.  In 
vain  would  that  man  claim  the  tribute  of  patriotism  who  should 
labor  to  subvert  these  great  pillars  of  human  happiness,  these 
firmest  props  of  the  destinies  of  men  and  citizens.  The  mere 
politician,  equally  with  the  pious  man,  ought  to  respect  and  to 
cherish  them.  A  volume  could  not  trace  all  their  connection  with 
private  and  public  felicity.  Let  it  simply  be  asked,  where  is  the 
security  for  property,  for  reputation,  for  life,  if  the  sense  of  re- 
ligious obligation  desert  the  oaths  which  are  the  instruments  of 
investigation  in  courts  of  justice?  And  let  us  with  caution  in- 
dulge the  supposition  that  morality  can  be  maintained  without 
religion.  Whatever  may  be  conceded  to  the  influence  of  refined 
education  on  minds  of  peculiar  structure,  reason  and  experience 
both  forbid  us  to  expect  that  national  morality  can  prevail  in 
exclusion  of  religious  principles. 

It  is  substantially  true  that  virtue  or  morality  is  a  necessary 
spring  of  popular  government.    The  rule,  indeed,  extends  with 


THE    BREACH   WITH   FRANCE  65 

more  or  less  force  to  every  species  of  free  government.  Who, 
that  is  a  sincere  friend  to  it,  can  look  with  indifference  upon  at- 
tempts to  shake  the  foundation  of  the  fabric  ? 

Promote,  then,  as  an  object  of  primary  importance,  institu- 
tions for  the  general  diffusion  of  knowledge.  In  proportion  as 
the  structure  of  a  government  gives  force  to  public  opinion  it  is 
essential  that  public  opinion  should  be  enlightened. 

As  a  very  important  source  of  strength  and  security  cherish 
public  credit.  One  method  of  preserving  it  is  to  use  it  as  spar- 
ingly as  possible;  avoiding  occasions  of  expense  by  cultivating 
peace,  but  remembering  also  that  timely  disbursements  to  pre- 
pare for  danger  frequently  prevent  much  greater  disbursements 
to  repel  it ;  avoiding  likewise  the  accumulation  of  debt,  not  only 
by  shunning  occasions  of  expense,  but  by  vigorous  exertions  in 
time  of  peace  to  discharge  the  debts  which  unavoidable  wars  may 
have  occasioned,  not  ungenerously  throwing  upon  posterity  the 
burden  which  we  ourselves  ought  to  bear.  The  execution  of  these 
maxims  belongs  to  your  representatives,  but  it  is  necessary  that 
public  opinion  should  cooperate.  To  facilitate  to  them  the  per- 
formance of  their  duty  it  is  essential  that  you  should  practically 
bear  in  mind  that  toward  the  payment  of  debts  there  must  be 
revenue ;  that  to  have  revenue  there  must  be  taxes ;  that  no  taxes 
can  be  devised  which  are  not  more  or  less  inconvenient  and  un- 
pleasant ;  that  the  intrinsic  embarrassment  inseparable  from  the 
selection  of  the  proper  objects  (which  is  always  the  choice  of 
difficulties)  ought  to  be  a  decisive  motive  for  a  candid  construc- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  the  government  in  making  it,  and  for  a 
spirit  of  acquiescence  in  the  measures  for  obtaining  revenue 
which  the  public  exigencies  may  at  any  time  dictate. 

Observe  good  faith  and  justice  toward  all  nations;  cultivate 
peace  and  harmony  with  all;  religion  and  morality  enjoin  this 
conduct ;  and  can  it  be  that  good  policy  does  not  equally  enjoin 
it  ?  It  will  be  worthy  of  a  free,  enlightened,  and,  at  no  distant 
period,  a  great  nation  to  give  to  mankind  the  magnanimous  and 
too  novel  example  of  a  people  always  guided  by  an  exalted  jus- 
tice and  benevolence.  Who  can  doubt  that,  in  the  course  of  time 
and  things,  the  fruits  of  such  a  plan  would  richly  repay  any 
temporary  advantages  that  might  be  lost  by  a  steady  adherence 
to  it?  Can  it  be  that  Providence  has  not  connected  the  per- 
manent felicity  of  a  nation  with  its  virtue  ?  The  experiment,  at 
least,  is  recommended  by  every  sentiment  which  ennobles  human 
nature.    Alas !  is  it  rendered  impossible  by  its  vices  ? 

In  the  execution  of  such  a  plan  nothing  is  more  essential  than 
that  permanent,  inveterate  antipathies  against  particular  na- 


66  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

tions,  and  passionate  attachments  for  others,  should  be  excluded ; 
and  that  in  place  of  them  just  and  amicable  feelings  toward  all 
should  be  cultivated.  The  nation  which  indulges  toward  another 
an  habitual  hatred,  or  an  habitual  fondness,  is  in  some  degree  a 
slave.  It  is  a  slave  to  its  animosity  or  to  its  affection,  either  of 
which  is  sufficient  to  lead  it  astray  from  its  duty  and  its  interest. 
Antipathy  in  one  nation  against  another  disposes  each  more 
readily  to  offer  insult  and  injury,  to  lay  hold  of  slight  causes  of 
umbrage,  and  to  be  haughty  and  intractable,  when  accidental  or 
trifling  occasions  of  dispute  occur. 

Hence  frequent  collisions,  obstinate,  envenomed,  and  bloody 
contests.  The  nation,  prompted  by  ill  will  and  resentment,  some- 
times impels  to  war  the  government,  contrary  to  the  best  cal- 
culations of  policy.  The  government  sometimes  participates  in 
the  national  propensity,  and  adopts  through  passion  what  reason 
would  reject ;  at  other  times  it  makes  the  animosity  of  the  nation 
subservient  to  projects  of  hostility  instigated  by  pride,  ambition, 
and  other  sinister  and  pernicious  motives.  The  peace  often,  and 
sometimes,  perhaps,  the  liberty,  of  nations  has  been  the  victim. 

So,  likewise,  a  passionate  attachment  of  one  nation  for  an- 
other produces  a  variety  of  evils.  Sympathy  for  the  favorite 
nation  facilitating  the  illusion  of  an  imaginary  common  interest 
in  cases  where  no  real  common  interest  exists,  and  infusing  into 
one  the  enmities  of  the  other,  betrays  the  former  into  a  partici- 
pation in  the  quarrels  and  wars  of  the  latter,  without  adequate 
inducement  or  justification.  It  leads  also  to  concessions  to  the 
favorite  nation  of  privileges  denied  to  others,  which  is  apt 
doubly  to  injure  the  nation  making  the  concessions ;  by  unneces- 
sarily parting  with  what  ought  to  have  been  retained;  and  by 
exciting  jealousy,  ill  will,  and  a  disposition  to  retaliate  in  the 
parties  from  whom  equal  privileges  are  withheld ;  and  it  gives  to 
ambitious,  corrupted,  or  deluded  citizens  (who  devote  themselves 
to  the  favorite  nation)  facility  to  betray  or  sacrifice  the  interests 
of  their  own  country  without  odium,  sometimes  even  with  popu- 
larity ;  gilding,  with  the  appearances  of  a  virtuous  sense  of  obli- 
gation, a  commendable  deference  for  public  opinion,  or  laudable 
zeal  for  public  good,  the  base  or  foolish  compliances  of  ambition, 
corruption,  or  infatuation. 

As  avenues  to  foreign  influence,  in  innumerable  ways,  such 
attachments  are  particularly  alarming  to  the  truly  enlightened 
and  independent  patriot.  How  many  opportunities  do  they  af- 
ford to  tamper  with  domestic  factions;  to  practice  the  arts  of 
seduction;  to  mislead  public  opinion;  to  influence  or  awe  the 
public  councils !    Such  an  attachment  of  a  small  or  weak  nation 


THE    BREACH    WITH    FRANCE  67 

toward  a  great  and  powerful  one  dooms  the  former  to  be  the 
satellite  of  the  latter. 

Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence  (I  conjure 
you  to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens)  the  jealousy  of  a  free  people 
ought  to  be  constantly  awake;  since  history  and  experience 
prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most  baneful  foes  of 
republican  government.  But  that  jealousy,  to  be  useful,  must 
be  impartial ;  else  it  becomes  the  instrument  of  the  very  influence 
to  be  avoided,  instead  of  a  defence  against  it.  Excessive  par- 
tiality for  one  foreign  nation,  and  excessive  dislike  of  another, 
cause  those  whom  they  actuate  to  see  danger  only  on  one  side; 
and  serve  to  veil  and  even  second  the  arts  of  influence  on  the 
other.  Real  patriots,  who  may  resist  the  intrigues  of  the  favor- 
ite, are  liable  to  become  suspected  and  odious ;  while  its  tools  and 
dupes  usurp  the  applause  and  confidence  of  the  people  to  sur- 
render their  interests. 

The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us,  in  regard  to  foreign  nations, 
is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations,  to  have  with  them  as 
little  political  connection  as  possible.  So  far  as  we  have  already 
formed  engagements  let  them  be  fulfilled  with  perfect  good  faith. 
Here  let  us  stop. 

Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests,  which  to  us  have  none, 
or  a  very  remote,  relation.  Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in  fre- 
quent controversies,  the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign 
to  our  concerns.  Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to 
implicate  ourselves,  by  artificial  ties,  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes 
of  her  politics,  or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  collisions  of  her 
friendships  and  enmities. 

Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  enables  us  to 
pursue  a  different  course.  If  we  remain  one  people,  under  an 
efficient  government,  the  period  is  not  far  off  when  we  may  defy 
material  injury  from  external  annoyance;  when  we  may  take 
such  an  attitude  as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at  any  time 
resolve  upon  to  be  scrupulously  respected;  when  belligerent  na- 
tions, under  the  impossibility  of  making  acquisitions  upon  us, 
will  not  lightly  hazard  the  giving  us  provocation ;  when  we  may 
choose  peace  or  war,  as  our  interest,  guided  by  justice,  shall 
counsel. 

Why  forego  the  advantages  of  so  peculiar  a  situation  ?  Why 
quit  our  own,  to  stand  upon  foreign  ground?  Why,  by  inter- 
weaving our  destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe,  entangle 
our  peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition, 
rivalship,  interest,  humor,  or  caprice  ? 

Tis  our  true  policy  to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances  with 


68  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

any  portion  of  the  foreign  world ;  so  far,  I  mean,  as  we  are  now 
at  liberty  to  do  it;  for  let  me  not  be  understood  as  capable  of 
patronizing  infidelity  to  existing  engagements.  I  hold  the  maxim 
no  less  applicable  to  public  than  to  private  affairs,  that  honesty 
is  always  the  best  policy.  I  repeat  it,  therefore,  let  those  engage- 
ments be  observed  in  their  genuine  sense.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it 
is  unnecessary,  and  would  be  unwise,  to  extend  them. 

Taking  care  always  to  keep  ourselves,  by  suitable  establish- 
ments, in  a  respectable  defensive  posture,  we  may  safely  trust  to 
temporary  alliances  for  extraordinary  emergencies. 

Harmony,  and  a  liberal  intercourse  with  all  nations,  are  rec- 
ommended by  policy,  humanity,  and  interest.  But  even  our  com- 
mercial policy  should  hold  an  equal  and  impartial  hand  j  neither 
seeking  nor  granting  exclusive  favors  or  preferences ;  consulting 
the  natural  course  of  things ;  diffusing  and  diversifying,  by  gen- 
tle means,  the  streams  of  commerce,  but  forcing  nothing ;  estab- 
lishing, with  powers  so  disposed,  in  order  to  give  trade  a  stable 
course,  to  define  the  rights  of  our  merchants,  and  to  enable  the 
Government  to  support  them,  conventional  rules  of  intercourse, 
the  best  that  present  circumstances  and  mutual  opinion  will  per- 
mit, but  temporary,  and  liable  to  be,  from  time  to  time,  aban- 
doned or  varied,  as  experience  and  circumstances  shall  dictate; 
constantly  keeping  in  view  that  it  is  folly  in  one  nation  to  look 
for  disinterested  favors  from  another;  that  it  must  pay,  with  a 
portion  of  its  independence,  for  whatever  it  may  accept  under 
that  character;  that,  by  such  acceptance,  it  may  place  itself  in 
the  condition  of  having  given  equivalents  for  nominal  favors, 
and  yet  of  being  reproached  with  ingratitude  for  not  giving 
more.  There  can  be  no  greater  error  than  to  expect  or  calculate 
upon  real  favors  from  nation  to  nation.  It  is  an  illusion,  which 
experience  must  cure,  which  a  just  pride  ought  to  discard. 

The  duty  of  holding  a  neutral  conduct  may  be  inferred,  with- 
out anything  more,  from  the  obligation  which  justice  and  hu- 
manity impose  on  every  nation,  in  cases  in  which  it  is  free  to  act, 
to  maintain  inviolate  the  relations  of  peace  and  amity  toward 
other  nations. 

The  inducements  of  interest  for  observing  that  conduct  will 
best  be  referred  to  your  own  reflection  and  experience.  With 
me  a  predominant  motive  has  been  to  endeavor  to  gain  time  to 
our  country  to  settle  and  mature  its  yet  recent  institutions,  and 
to  progress,  without  interruption,  to  that  degree  of  strength  and 
consistency  which  is  necessary  to  give  it,  humanly  speaking,  the 
command  of  its  own  fortunes. 


THE    BREACH    WITH    FRANCE  69 

President  John  Adams  in  his  inaugural  address 
spoke  only  in  general  terms  of  the  strained  relations 
with  France,  expressing  the  hope  that  friendship  might 
continue  between  the  two  nations.  He  called,  however, 
a  special  session  of  Congress  in  which  he  delivered  an 
address  bearing  fully  and  plainly  upon  the  situation. 
As  a  measure  of  national  protection,  he  proposed  a 
naval  establishment  and  asked  Congress  to  pass  such 
regulations  as  would  "enable  our  seafaring  citizens  to 
defend  themselves  against  violations  of  the  law  of 
nations/ '  and  also  advised  that  the  regular  artillery  and 
cavalry  be  increased  and  arrangements  be  made  for 
forming  a  provisional  army,  and  that  the  militia  laws 
be  revised  for  greater  effectiveness. 

The  reply  of  the  Senate  heartily  endorsed  the  Presi- 
dent's policy.  The  answer  of  the  House  was  in  similar 
vein,  although  the  opposition  (Republicans)  had  pro- 
posed a  number  of  amendments  to  the  draft  of  the  ap- 
pointed committee  which  would  cause  the  reply  to  en- 
dorse the  proposals  of  the  new  administration  without 
approving  the  acts  of  the  old,  and  which,  by  going  as 
far  as  possible  in  excusing  her  acts,  would  prevent  it 
from  irritating  France. 

In  furtherance  of  a  promise  to  Congress  to  reopen 
negotiations  with  France,  President  Adams  appointed 
Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  John  Marshall,  and 
Elbridge  Gerry  envoys  extraordinary  to  that  country. 

On  March  19,  1798,  the  President  informed  Congress 
that  the  envoys  to  France  had  been  unable  to  secure 
terms  "compatible  with  the  safety,  the  honor,  or  the 
essential  interests  of  the  nation,"  and  he  recommended 
that  preparations  for  war  be  made.  He  also  announced 
that  he  intended  no  longer  to  restrain  merchant  vessels 
from  arming  themselves. 

This  was  the  first  time  that  Congress  under  the  Con- 
stitution had  been  called  upon  to  prepare  for  war,  and 
a  number  of  interesting  constitutional  arguments  were 
brought  forward  in  the  discussion  which  ensued.  The 
main  debate  was  upon  resolutions  introduced  on  March 
27,  for  the  purpose  of  clarifying  the  situation,  by  Richard 
Sprigg,  Jr.,  of  Maryland.    These  were  that  it  was  "not 


70  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

expedient  to  resort  to  war  against  the  French  Bepublic, 
that  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels  should  be  restricted, 
and  that  adequate  measures  of  defence  should  be 
adopted. '  I 

The  resolutions  accomplished  their  object  by  clearly- 
dividing  the  House  into  supporters  and  opponents  of 
the  conduct  and  policy  of  the  President.  In  the  long 
and  animated  debate  upon  them  they  were  gradually 
lost  sight  of,  a  more  specific  issue  arising  in  the  proposi- 
tion to  ask  the  President  for  all  the  papers  dealing  with 
the  French  relations.    This  proposition  was  carried. 

The  chief  supporters  of  the  Administration  were 
Samuel  Sitgreaves  [Pa.],  Harrison  Gray  Otis  [Mass.], 
Jonathan  Dayton  [N.  J.],  Robert  G.  Harper  [S.  C], 
John  Rutledge,  Jr.  [S.  C.],  Samuel  Sewall  [Mass.], 
Samuel  W.  Dana  [Ct.],  Nathaniel  Smith  [Ct.],  John  Wil- 
liams [N.  Y.],  Thomas  Pinckney  [S.  C],  John  Allen 
[Ct],  and  James  A.  Bayard,  Sr.  [Del.]. 

The  chief  opponents  of  the  Administration  were 
Abraham  Baldwin  [Ga.],  William  B.  Giles  [Va.],  John 
Nicholas  [Va.],  Albert  Gallatin  [Pa.],  and  Edward  Liv- 
ingston [N.  Y.]. 

On  the  Peace  Resolutions 
House  of  Representatives,  March  27-April  2,  1798 

Mr.  Sitgreaves  was  opposed  to  the  resolutions  of  Mr. 
Sprigg.    He  said: 

It  is  contrary  to  the  usual  and  ordinary  course  of  legislative 
proceeding  to  pass  mere  negative  resolutions.  The  power  of 
declaring  war  being  vested  in  the  Congress,  so  long  as  the  Con- 
gress shall  forbear  to  declare  war  it  is  a  sufficient  expression  of 
their  sentiment  that  such  a  declaration  would  be  inexpedient: 
it  is  the  only  proper  expression  of  such  a  sentiment ;  and  it  can 
be  no  more  right  to  resolve  that  we  will  not  resort  to  war,  than 
it  would  be  to  pass  an  act  to  declare  it  would  be  inexpedient  to 
make  a  law  for  the  regulation  of  bankruptcy  or  any  other 
municipal  concern. 

Mr.  Baldwin  did  not  believe  it  was  intended  that  this  House 
should  merely  be  the  instrument  to  give  the  sound  of  war;  the 
subject  seemed  to  be  placed  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  legisla- 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       71 

ture.  This  was  the  understanding  of  the  country  when  there 
was  no  government  in  existence,  and  he  believed  this  was  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution.  The  country  is  now  everywhere 
agitating  this  question  of  peace  or  war,  and  he  trusted  they 
would  not  be  left  to  grope  their  way  in  the  dark  on  this  im- 
portant question.  The  President  had  informed  the  House  that 
all  hopes  of  a  negotiation  were  at  an  end.  He  was  willing  to 
take  the  information  as  it  was  given,  without  going  into  the 
cabinet  of  the  executive,  and  to  take  measures  accordingly. 
But,  when  some  persons  declare  that  the  present  state  of  things 
is  already  a  state  of  war  j  that  the  country  is  going  on  in  it ;  that 
the  die  is  cast;  and  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  go  on 
with  it  as  well  as  we  can,  if  the  House  does  not  believe  this  to  be 
a  true  position,  this  resolution  ought  to  be  agreed  to,  which  went 
to  say  that  the  House  does  not  consider  the  present  a  state  of 
war,  but  a  state  of  peace. 

Mr.  Otis  proposed  to  strike  out  the  words  "resort  to"  and 
insert  "declare"  as  he  was  of  opinion  with  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Sitgreaves)  that  the  only  subjects  fit  for 
discussion  were  active  measures,  and  that  it  was  not  regular  to 
declare  when  they  would  not  do  a  thing. 

Mr.  Dayton  (the  Speaker)  moved  to  strike  out  the  words 
"against  the  French  republic"  and  declared  that,  although  he 
deemed  the  whole  resolution  unnecessary,  and  considered  it 
as  not  naturally  growing  out  of  the  President's  message,  which 
did  not  call  upon  us  to  declare  or  make  war,  yet,  as  it  must  be 
the  intenion  of  the  mover,  or  of  some  other  member,  to  follow  it 
up  with  like  declarations  in  relation  to  all  other  nations  with 
whom  the  United  States  had  any  intercourse,  provided  they  acted 
consistently,  he  thought  it  better  to  make  the  resolution  a  general 
one,  even  if  it  should  be  afterward  negatived. 

Mr.  Harper  seconded  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  New 
Jersey.  He  was  not  himself  disposed  for  war,  but  for  peace, 
while  peace  could  be  preserved.  But  he  never  said,  and  would 
not  say,  that  war  was  the  worst  thing  which  could  happen  to 
this  country ;  he  thought  submission  to  the  aggressions  of  a  for- 
eign power  infinitely  worse.  If  gentlemen  meant,  by  agreeing 
to  this  resolution,  to  prevent  the  country  from  being  put  into  a 
state  of  defence ;  if  they  meant  by  it  to  effect  an  entering  wedge 
to  submission,  he  trusted  they  would  find  themselves  mistaken; 
for,  though  he  believed  the  true  interest  of  the  country  lay  in 
peace,  yet  he  was  not  disposed  to  recede  from  any  measures 
which  he  thought  proper  through  fear  of  war. 

Mr.  Giles  believed  this  the  proper  time  to  declare  whether 


72  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  country  should  remain  in  peace  or  go  to  war.  He  thought 
the  resolution  proper  as  it  stood,  because  founded  on  the  message 
of  the  President,  in  which  the  French  republic  only  is  named. 
There  was  a  part  of  that  message,  he  said,  which,  in  his  opinion, 
amounted  to  a  declaration  of  war.  The  President  tells  the 
House  "that  the  situation  of  things  is  materially  changed  since 
he  issued  his  order  to  prevent  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels. ' ' 
As  far  as  he  understood  the  situation  of  the  United  States  at 
that  time,  it  was  a  state  of  neutrality.  If  that  state  is  changed, 
and  the  present  is  not  a  state  of  neutrality,  he  wished  to  know 
what  is.  He  knew  only  of  two  states:  a  state  of  neutrality 
and  a  state  of  war ;  he  knew  of  no  mongrel  state  between  them. 
Therefore,  if  the  President  of  the  United  States  could  declare 
war,  we  are  now  in  war.  Believing,  however,  that  Congress  had 
alone  the  power  to  declare  war,  he  thought  it  time  to  declare 
what  the  state  of  the  nation  is.  He  did  not  know  whether  the 
object  might  not  be  answered  by  the  resolution  being  general, 
as  he  was  and  always  had  been  (notwithstanding  insinuations  to 
the  contrary)  against  war  with  any  nation  upon  the  earth.  He 
looked  upon  war  as  the  greatest  calamity  which  could  befall  any 
nation;  and,  whatever  may  be  the  phantoms  raised  in  perspec- 
tive of  national  honor  and  glory  in  such  a  state,  they  will,  in 
the  end,  all  prove  fallacious.  He  believed  no  nation  ought  to 
go  to  war  except  when  attacked;  and  this  kind  of  war  he  should 
be  as  ready  to  meet  as  any  one.  He  believed  we  were  in  a  state 
which  required  the  utmost  vigor ;  but  he  thought  every  measure 
should  be  avoided  which  might  involve  the  country  in  war.  For, 
if  we  were  to  go  to  war  with  the  French  at  present,  he  knew  not 
what  ever  could  take  place  which  could  produce  peace ;  it  must 
be  a  war  of  extermination. 

Mr.  Nicholas  considered  this  amendment  as  defeating  the 
resolution.  Was  there  nothing,  he  asked,  which  called  for  a  dec- 
laration of  the  kind  proposed?  Was  it  not  clear  to  every  one 
that  the  country  was  going  fast  into  a  state  of  war,  and  was  it 
not  to  be  expected?  Ought  not  the  legislature,  then  (who  alone 
have  the  power  of  declaring  war),  to  determine  the  state  of 
the  country,  and  say  whether  they  mean  to  go  immediately  to 
war  or  not  ?  He  thought  the  necessity  of  the  resolution  was  suffi- 
ciently evident,  by  the  motion  which  had  been  made  to  change 
the  words  from  ' '  resort  to  war, ' '  to  declare  war ;  in  the  one  case 
the  mischief  was  met,  while  the  other  meant  nothing.  And,  if 
gentlemen  were  ready  to  say  we  were  not  prepared  to  declare 
war,  and,  at  the  same  time,  were  not  ready  to  say  it  is  not  ex- 
pedient to  resort  to  war,  it  proved  that  they  thought  war  might 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       73 

be  made  without  being  declared.  He  asked  whether  gentlemen 
did  not  believe  the  executive  had  taken  measures  which  would 
lead  to  war?  And  that,  if  he  were  at  liberty  to  act  upon  a 
change  of  circumstances  between  this  country  and  others,  Con- 
gress were  not  brought  into  a  situation  in  which  they  had  no 
choice?  Many  discussions  had  heretofore  taken  place  on  the 
Constitution,  but  he  had  never  heard  it  doubted  that  Congress 
had  the  power  over  the  progress  of  what  led  to  war,  as  well  as 
the  power  of  declaring  war;  but,  if  the  President  could  take 
the  measures  which  he  had  taken  with  respect  to  arming  mer- 
chant vessels,  he,  and  not  Congress,  had  the  power  of  making 
war.  He  was  of  opinion  that  the  step  taken  by  the  President 
with  respect  to  merchant  vessels  went  to  declare  that  we  rested 
our  cause  on  arms,  which  was  not  calculated  to  produce  any  good 
effect  in  our  favor. 

Mr.  Rutledge  said:  Gentlemen  asked  whether  war  is  not 
approaching?  And  whether  the  Executive  is  not  hastening  it? 
To  the  first  question  he  could  not  answer,  as  it  depended  on 
France,  and  so  versatile  and  uncertain  is  everything  in  that 
country  that  no  dependence  can  be  had  upon  it.  The  second 
question  he  answered  in  the  negative.  War  would  be  a  loss  to 
this  country ;  and  to  no  individual  more  than  the  Executive,  who 
is  no  warrior — consequently  war  has  no  laurels  in  store  for  him. 

Referring  to  the  inaction  of  Congress  at  the  previous  session, 
he  thought  our  frigates  ought  not  to  have  remained  at  the 
wharves;  that  our  extensive  seacoast,  on  which  is  much  wealth, 
should  not  be  unprotected :  he  thought  our  seaports,  the  principal 
depots  of  our  revenue,  ought  to  have  been  fortified.  He  had 
joined  his  friends  in  their  attempts  to  have  carried  these  meas- 
ures, and,  when  they  failed,  he  could  not  help  thinking  his 
country  was  in  a  degraded  state  and  that  she  had  lost  the  spirit 
which  animated  her  in  the  year  1775.  He  hoped,  however,  that 
now,  when  France  had  gone  to  the  lengths  which  she  has  gone 
to,  there  would  be  only  one  sentiment  as  to  the  propriety  of 
the  measures  formerly  proposed. 

Mr.  Sewall  quoted  a  part  of  the  President's  message  as  to 
the  decree  which  was  proposed  respecting  the  taking  of  English 
goods  on  board  of  neutral  vessels  and  the  carrying  of  which 
was  declared  to  make  neutral  vessels  good  prizes.  This  last 
regulation,  Mr.  S.  said,  was  a  direct  violation  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, and  amounted  to  a  declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of 
France  against  this  country.  But,  instead  of  making  any  de- 
fence, gentlemen  call  upon  the  committee  to  declare  we  are  not 
disposed  to  resort  to  war  against  the  French  republic;  so  that, 


74  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

after  we  have  been  injured  and  abused,  and  the  common  rights 
of  humanity  have  been  denied  us,  we  are  not  to  complain,  but 
make  a  declaration  that  we  will  not  go  to  war.  Was,  then,  he 
asked,  a  question  of  war  a  card  of  politeness !  Did  a  nation  ever 
make  a  declaration  that  it  was  not  at  war  f  It  could  not  say  so, 
except  it  were  in  so  degraded  a  state  that  it  had  no  rights  ca- 
pable of  injury.  To  say  we  are  not  at  war  was  to  say  no  more 
than  it  is  light  when  the  sun  shines ;  but  to  call  upon  the  commit- 
tee to  say  so  at  this  time  was  to  degrade  the  nation  from  its 
independence  and  below  its  character.  The  present  state  of 
things,  Mr.  S.  said,  ought  to  be  considered  as  a  state  of  war, 
not  declared  by  us,  but  against  us,  by  the  French  republic; 
and  if  we  want  spirit  to  defend  ourselves  let  us  not  say  so.  We 
may  refrain  from  acting,  but  let  us  not  say  we  receive  injuries 
with  thankfulness.  But  this  proposition  goes  still  further.  In 
a  moment  of  public  danger  it  goes  to  divide  and  separate  this 
House  from  the  President  of  the  United  States.  The  gentleman 
from  Virginia  [Mr.  Giles]  had  well  explained  this  resolution 
when  he  said  it  was  intended  to  interrupt  the  views  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  That  gentleman  considered  the  mes- 
sage of  the  President  as  a  declaration  of  war,  and  this  resolution 
was  to  be  in  contradiction  to  it.  If  this  was  the  sense  in  which 
it  was  to  be  understood,  it  was  false  in  point  of  fact;  for  the 
President  had  neither  declared  war  nor  called  upon  Congress 
to  declare  war ;  no  such  sentiment  could  be  found  in  the  message. 
To  agree  to  the  proposition  as  it  stands  would  be  to  give  counte- 
nance to  the  assertion  of  the  French  Government  that  we  are 
a  people  divided  from  our  Government;  but,  taking  it  with  the 
amendment,  he  looked  upon  it  as  a  harmless  thing.  Mr.  S.  con- 
cluded by  saying  that  he  considered  the  conduct  of  France  in 
the  light  of  war.  How  far  we  would  resent  it  was  the  question ; 
whether  offensively  or  defensively.  He  was  in  favor  of  defensive 
measures,  as  we  are  not  equal  to  offensive  measures  (he  wished 
to  God  we  were).  It  was  our  weakness  and  the  division  which 
had  appeared  in  our  councils  that  had  invited  these  attacks.  He 
trusted  they  should  now  unite  and  repel  them. 

Mb.  Gallatin  said  the  intention  of  the  amendment  was  evi- 
dently to  render  the  resolution  as  unmeaning  as  possible. 

Every  gentleman  who  had  spoken  on  this  subject  had  agreed 
that  war  is  not  a  desirable  object  for  the  United  States.  He 
gave  them  credit  for  the  assertion.  But  this  was  not  the  ques- 
tion ;  but  whether  we  are  prepared  to  resort  to  war  under  exist- 
ing circumstances.    It  is  a  question  of  fact. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  are  informed  by  France  that 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE        75 

negotiations  are  at  an  end,  and  that  we  cannot  obtain  redress  for 
wrongs,  but  may  expect  a  continuation  of  captures  in  conse- 
quence of  the  decree,  which  it  was  supposed  was  passed,  for 
seizing  all  neutral  vessels  with  British  property,  manufactures, 
or  produce  on  board.  Mr.  G.  said  he  differed  in  opinion  from 
the  gentleman  last  up  that  this  was  a  declaration  of  war.  He 
allowed  it  would  be  justifiable  ground  of  war  for  this  country 
and  that,  on  this  account,  it  was  necessary  to  agree  to,  or  reject, 
the  present  proposition  in  order  to  determine  the  ground  in- 
tended to  be  taken.  For,  though  there  may  be  justifiable  cause 
for  war,  if  it  is  not  our  interest  to  go  to  war  the  resolution  will 
be  agreed  to. 

There  was  another  reason  why  this  resolution  ought  to  be 
now  decided  which  arose  from  the  conduct  of  our  executive. 
He  has  declared  that  a  change  of  circumstances  has  taken  place 
which  has  occasioned  him  to  withdraw  his  order  forbidding  mer- 
chant vessels  to  arm;  which  amounts  to  this:  that  he  now  per- 
mits vessels  of  the  United  States  to  use  means  of  defence  against 
any  attack  which  may  be  made  upon  them.  Mr.  G.  thought  it 
necessary,  therefore,  to  declare  whether  we  were  to  pursue  meas- 
ures of  war  or  peace. 

Mr.  Dana  said  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  and  two 
gentlemen  from  Virginia,  had  said  that  the  message  of  the  Presi- 
dent amounted  to  a  declaration  that  we  were  now  in  war.  This 
idea  he  thought  was  stated  very  incorrectly.  They  did  not 
seem  to  have  understood  the  meaning  of  the  language  of  the 
President.  The  state  of  things  which  existed  at  the  time  orders 
were  issued  to  prevent  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels  was  essen- 
tially different  from  the  present ;  then  there  was  an  evident  dis- 
position in  the  owners  of  vessels  to  cruise  against  a  foreign  bel- 
ligerent nation  and  the  order  was  issued  to  prevent  attack  and 
plunder;  but  the  desire  to  arm  at  present  is  for  the  purpose 
of  defence  merely,  and  not  to  cruise  or  plunder.  There  is  a  law 
forbidding  vessels  to  arm  for  the  purpose  of  cruising ;  but  none 
forbidding  merchants  to  arm  in  their  own  defence.  This  was 
the  fair  construction,  he  believed,  of  the  meaning  of  the  Presi- 
dent. 

Mr.  Otis  considered  the  message  in  a  different  view  from 
many  gentlemen.  But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
the  President  had  declared  an  opinion  upon  the  facts  stated 
by  him,  that  war  was  inevitable;  gentlemen  must  consider  the 
fact  to  be  true;  if  they  doubted  it,  they  ought  to  demand  in- 
formation. 

Mr.  Smith  looked  upon  the  present  resolution  as  very  un- 


76       GREAT  AMERICAN  DEBATES 

important.  It  simply  afforded  a  text  from  which  it  was  in- 
tended to  alarm  the  people  with  respect  to  war,  and  he  wished 
not  to  indulge  gentlemen  in  their  design.  He  wished  the  ques- 
tion to  be  taken  for  another  reason.  It  was  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia  that  the  message  of  the  President  was 
considered  by  the  people  as  a  declaration  of  war,  and  that  re- 
ports were  in  circulation  that  a  treaty,  offensive  and  defensive, 
was  concluded  with  Great  Britain.  After  this  he  would  call  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  the  resolution,  which  was,  in  effect, 
to  say,  we  must  interfere  or  war  will  be  brought  upon  the  coun- 
try. Did  not  this  go  to  sanction  a  report  which  was  as  false  and 
malignant  as  even  Jacobinism  could  invent?  It  did;  and  he 
hoped  they  would  not  so  far  sanction  the  report  as  to  let  the 
motion  lie  before  them  undecided. 

Mr.  Giles  said  the  question  was  a  question  of  peace  or  war, 
and  yet  gentlemen  call  it  trifling.  He  did  not  mean  to  alarm  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  but  he  wished  them  to  understand 
their  situation.  He  acknowledged  he  was  himself  much  alarmed. 
Gentlemen  were  willing  to  engage  in  defensive,  but  not  in  offen- 
sive, war;  but,  when  war  was  once  begun,  it  would  not  be  in 
the  power  of  the  United  States  to  keep  it  within  the  character 
of  defensive  war.  Indeed,  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Sewall],  when  he  spoke  of  defensive  war,  confessed  our 
inability  for  offensive  war,  and  uttered  a  prayer  to  the  Supreme 
Being  that  we  were  able  to  engage  offensively;  and  where,  he 
asked,  with  such  sentiments,  is  the  difference  between  offensive 
and  defensive  war?  He  could  see  none;  he  deprecated  war  of 
every  kind. 

Mr.  Williams  was  persuaded  that  this  negative  mode  of 
proceeding  was  calculated  to  draw  on  a  debate  to  set  the  people 
against  the  executive.  He  had  himself  seen  gentlemen  write 
upon  the  late  message  of  the  President  for  the  purpose  of  send- 
ing to  their  constituents:  "A  war  message  against  France.'9 

Mr.  Pinckney  said  from  the  first  period  of  a  misunderstand- 
ing with  France  declarations  have  been  made  deprecating  war 
in  general  terms,  but  particularly  with  that  nation.  A  minister 
plenipotentiary  had  been  sent  to  explain  the  views  of  this  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  remove  any  jealousies  which  might  exist,  and  to 
make  such  specific  propositions  as  were  thought  necessary;  but 
our  minister  was  rejected  without  a  hearing.  The  next  measure 
was  to  send  special  commissioners  in  order  to  settle  our  differ- 
ences and  avert  the  calamity  of  war.  We  have,  therefore,  made 
sufficient  declarations  of  our  pacific  intentions.  Indeed,  he 
thought  too  much  had  been  rested  on  these  declarations,  as  noth- 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       77 

ing  had  been  done  for  our  defence.  When  we  looked  at  our 
seaports  and  saw  their  defenceless  condition  he  thought  it  evi- 
dent sufficient  attention  had  not  been  paid  to  them,  knowing 
that  war  might  at  least  be  a  possible  event. 

He  should  not  have  been  surprised  if  some  one,  fired  with 
the  injuries  we  have  received,  had  brought  forward  a  proposi- 
tion for  war.  But  instead  of  this,  smarting  as  we  are  under 
injuries,  our  commerce  bleeding  at  every  pore,  and  our  country 
deeply  humiliated,  we  are  called  upon  to  say:  You  have  done 
everything  to  injure,  insult,  and  degrade  us  but  we  have  de- 
served it;  we  will  do  nothing  to  oppose  you.  Though  God  and 
nature  have  given  us  power  we  will  not  go  to  war  with  you, 
neither  on  the  present  occasion  nor  on  any  other,  whatever  in- 
jury you  may  commit  upon  us. 

Mr.  Giles  said  that  we  ought  not  to  resort  to  war  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  United  States.  Within  our  own  limits  we  are 
capable  of  making  something  like  exertion,  and  there,  he  believed, 
exertions  might  be  made  to  advantage.  Indeed,  one  of  the  prop- 
ositions which  is  connected  with  the  present  goes  to  this  pur- 
pose, and  therefore  with  what  propriety  could  the  gentleman 
say  he,  and  those  who  were  of  his  opinion,  were  not  for  preparing 
for  defence  till  the  enemy  is  at  the  door  ?  Nor  could  he  see  any- 
thing like  humiliation  in  this.  Nay,  he  was  convinced  if  we 
carried  our  preparations  for  defence  beyond  our  own  limits,  in- 
stead of  gaining  glory  or  honor,  we  shall  meet  with  nothing  but 
disgrace,  as  we  are  not  prepared  to  make  a  defence  at  sea.  In- 
deed, the  moment  we  get  beyond  our  jurisdictional  line,  defence 
will  become  offence,  because  there  will  be  no  evidence  by  which 
it  can  be  ascertained  by  whom  the  attack  commenced.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  unwise  to  permit  ourselves  to  be  placed  in  this 
situation. 

At  present,  said  Mr.  G.,  there  is  a  pretty  general  opinion  in 
the  country  (and  he  thought  there  was  much  ground  for  the 
opinion)  that  there  is  a  disposition  in  a  part  of  this  House,  and 
in  part  of  the  Government,  for  war ;  and  he  thought  it  was  proper 
to  come  to  a  declaration  upon  the  subject.  This  would  not  only 
have  a  good  effect  upon  our  own  citizens,  but  it  would  convince 
European  powers  that,  though  we  were  preparing  for  defence, 
we  were  not  preparing  for  war. 

Mr.  Harper  said  gentlemen  preached  about  peace.  They  cry, 
M peace!  peace !"  as  if  we,  holding  the  scale  of  the  world,  had 
the  power  to  preserve  it.  Do  not  gentlemen  know  that  peace  or 
war  is  not  in  our  power  ?  They  do  know  it,  and  that  all  in  our 
power  is  to  resist,  or  submit.    Was  not  the  clamor  which  was 


78  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

heard  about  peace  in  so  many  words  saying:  you  must  submit, 
not  only  to  what  injuries  you  have  received,  but  to  what  you 
may  hereafter  receive  ?  If  peace  was  all  that  gentlemen  wanted 
they  would  take  the  resolution  in  general  terms,  as  proposed  to 
be  amended;  but  their  opposing  it  shows  that  they  have  no 
objection  to  hostility,  if  it  be  not  against  those  whom  they  dread. 
And  this  was  the  spirit  of  peace  which  they  wished  to  preserve — 
a  spirit  which  he  deemed  vile  submission — a  spirit  which  was 
afraid  to  complain  and  which  met  every  new  insult  without  mur- 
mur. 

The  committee  were  now  told  it  would  be  time  enough  to 
prepare  for  war  when  an  invasion  of  our  country  was  attempted. 
And  why  were  they  told  this?  Because  such  an  event  is  not 
likely  to  take  place.  Gentlemen  know  that  all  the  hostility 
which  France  wished  to  commit  against  this  country  may  be  done 
by  destroying  our  commerce. 

Mr.  H.  said  he  would  bring  his  proofs  to  show  that  those  gen- 
tlemen who  are  now  so  loud  in  their  calls  for  peace  were  here- 
tofore the  supporters  of  a  war  system.  For  this  purpose  he 
adduced  Mr.  Monroe's  view  of  the  conduct  of  the  Executive  of 
the  United  States,  which,  he  said,  was  a  publication  which  had 
met  with  the  most  unbounded  and  enthusiastic  applauses  from 
all  the  party;  and  he  read  from  it  an  extract  of  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Monroe  to  our  Secretary  of  State  dated  Paris,  September  10, 
1796,  in  which  he  states  it  to  be  his  opinion  ' '  that  if  a  suitable 
attempt  be  made  to  engage  the  aid  of  the  French  Government 
in  support  of  our  claims  upon  England  it  may  be  accomplished ; 
and  that  to  secure  success  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  the  posts 
and  invade  Canada.' ' 

Yet  these  are  the  gentlemen  who  now  are  willing  to  say  to 
France:  "We  will  not  fight  you;  we  give  you  license  to  do  us 
all  the  injury  you  please.  You  may  fit  out  half  a  dozen  frigates 
which  will  be  able  to  block  up  our  ports;  and  we  give  you  this 
notice  that  you  may  effect  your  purpose  with  little  expense  and 
not  prepare  a  large  fleet  for  the  purpose." 

Mr.  Giles  said  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  [Mr. 
Harper]  had  said  "that  it  had  been  the  object  of  himself  and 
his  associates,  but  particularly  of  himself,  since  the  year  1794  to 
go  to  war  with  Great  Britain,  if  possible,  and  to  enter  into  a 
treaty  of  alliance,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  France. ' ' 

From  the  year  1794  to  the  present  period  he  had  uniformly 
declared  it  to  be  his  opinion  "that  war  is  justifiable  only  in 
case  of  self-defence.,, 

Though  he  thought  France  had  just  ground  of  complaint 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       79 

against  this  country,  he  did  not  mean  to  justify  her  conduct 
toward  us.  He  thought  she  ought  to  have  received  our  min- 
isters ;  and,  if  they  had  not  agreed,  to  have  taken  such  measures 
as  they  thought  proper.  But  this  is  supposing  our  ministers 
clothed  with  sufficient  powers;  if  they  were  not  there  would 
be  some  ground  of  justification  for  their  conduct.  The  President 
of  the  United  States  is  in  the  possession  of  information  which 
would  satisfy  the  Congress  and  the  people  in  this  respect,  but 
he  has  thought  proper  to  withhold  it,  and  therefore  he  alone  is 
responsible.  The  President  informed  the  House  that  he  had 
received  certain  papers  and  says:  "I  have  considered  these 
papers ;  I  have  deliberated  upon  them ;  I  have  not  sent  them  to 
you  but  require  you  to  act  upon  them ;  I  call  upon  you  to  take 
energetic  measures  and  request  you  will  provide  sufficient  rev- 
enue." The  House  has  been  thus  obliged  to  take  up  the  subject 
in  the  dark.  Is  this,  said  he,  a  desirable  state  for  the  legislature 
to  be  placed  in  ?  Is  it  not  rather  a  degraded  state  ?  He  thought 
when  party  rage  shall  subside  this  conduct  would  be  deemed 
extraordinary.  In  these  circumstances,  said  he,  are  the  people 
of  the  United  States  to  be  led  on  from  step  to  step  until  they 
are  irrevocably  involved  in  war?  And  are  the  people  to  be 
told  that  this  is  a  trifling  question  ? 

Mr.  Harper  replied  to  Mr.  Giles's  assertion  that  he  (Mr.  G.) 
never  proposed  war  against  Great  Britain.  He  knew  it.  The 
gentleman  always  spoke  of  peace,  but  pursued  measures  which 
led  to  war.  He  did  not  speak  of  war  when  he  recommended 
sequestrations,  confiscations,  etc.,  because  he  loved  peace.  He 
did  not  talk  of  war ;  but,  while  he  and  his  friends  opposed  meas- 
ures of  defence,  they  were  in  favor  of  every  measure  which  led 
to  war.  While  they  were  irritating  a  nation  to  war  they  opposed 
the  building  of  frigates.  He  thought  it  seemed  as  if  gentlemen 
believed  it  would  be  well  to  get  to  war  and  then  rely  upon  their 
favorite  nation  for  support. 

Mr.  Giles  renewed  the  assertion  that  he  and  his  friends  al- 
ways had  been  willing  to  put  the  nation  in  a  state  of  defence. 
As  to  the  frigates,  he  gloried  in  his  vote  against  them ;  but  with 
respect  to  the  use  of  them  the  gentleman  was  mistaken.  They 
were  intended  to  be  sent  against  the  Algerines  only. 

Mr.  Allen  said  it  had  been  observed,  and  not  in  the  most 
candid  and  proper  manner,  that  the  papers  received  from  our 
commissioners  ought  to  have  been  laid  before  the  House,  and 
the  President  had  been  charged  with  withholding  them. 

Though  he  was  himself  satisfied  with  the  information  he 
had  at  present,  he  believed  there  were  many  gentlemen  in  the 


80  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

House  who  wished  for  more,  because  there  is  a  paper  printed 
in  this  city  which  is  continually  insinuating  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  these  dispatches  which,  if  they  were  made  known,  would 
show  that  the  conduct  of  the  Executive  has  been  improper.  He 
therefore  proposed  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  re- 
quested to  communicate  to  this  House  the  dispatches  from  the 
envoys  extraordinary  of  the  United  States  to  the  French  repub- 
lic, mentioned  in  his  message  of  the  19th  instant,  or  such  parts 
thereof  as  considerations  of  public  safety  and  interest  in  his 
opinion  may  permit." 

Mr.  Giles  said  that  no  part  of  the  correspondence  ought  to 
be  kept  from  Congress.  He  was  not  himself  satisfied  as  to  the 
sincerity  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Executive  of  the  United 
States  toward  France;  he  wished,  therefore,  not  only  to  have 
the  correspondence  of  our  Ministers,  but  the  instructions  which 
were  given  to  them. 

Mr.  Livingston  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking 
out  all  the  words  after  the  19th  instant,  and  insert  after  the 
words  "this  House' '  "the  instructions  to  and." 

The  latter  part  of  the  resolution  proposed  to  transfer  a  right 
to  the  President  which  it  ought  itself  to  exercise,  as  to  judging 
of  what  it  was  proper  to  publish  in  consideration  of  the  public 
safety  and  interest.  If  this  power  was  given  to  the  President 
he  might  withhold  such  parts  of  the  papers  as  might  prevent  a 
correct  judgment  being  formed  upon  them.  He  was  not  him- 
self disposed  to  cede  to  the  President  the  right  which  he  was 
sent  there  to  exercise  for  his  constituents,  of  judging  of  so  im- 
portant a  question  as  a  question  of  peace  or  war.  He  could  not 
basely  surrender  this  right.  If  the  papers  were  called  for  at 
all  he  hoped  the  whole  would  be  called  for,  in  order  that  the 
House  might  form  that  sound  and  temperate  judgment  for  which 
the  present  crisis  so  loudly  calls  and  for  which  the  people  of 
the  United  States  so  anxiously  look.  Indeed,  to  pass  the  resolu- 
tion unamended  would,  in  his  opinion,  be  a  shameful  dereliction 
of  their  rights. 

Mr.  Bayard  thought  the  propriety  of  this  call  upon  the 
President  was  extremely  doubtful  and,  as  it  regarded  the  instruc- 
tions given  to  our  ministers,  wholly  improper.  With  respect 
to  the  communication  of  the  dispatches,  it  was  wholly  a  matter 
of  executive  discretion  to  judge  whether  it  would  be  proper  to 
communicate  them  or  not.  He  was  one  of  those  who  had  so  much 
confidence  in  the  Executive  as  to  trust  to  his  candor,  under- 
standing, and  integrity  to  determine  upon  the  propriety  of  what 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       81 

he  should  send  to,  or  withhold  from,  this  House.  At  a  time 
when  it  is  not  known  that  our  negotiation  with  France  is  closed 
it  would  be  extremely  imprudent  to  have  the  instructions  of 
our  ministers  laid  before  this  House,  as  what  was  sent  here,  not- 
withstanding any  vote  of  secrecy,  would  not  long  be  kept  secret. 
It  would  soon  be  in  Europe  and  might  do  us  essential  injury 
by  disclosing  our  ultimatum  to  France  and  by  showing  it  also 
to  the  world.  It  was  in  vain,  Mr.  B.  said,  to  suppose  that  one 
hundred  men  could  keep  a  secret  for  any  length  of  time,  however 
important  it  might  be.  To  elucidate  that  assertion  he  referred  to 
the  divulging  the  secret  of  the  British  treaty  by  a  Senator. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Giles]  has  no  con- 
fidence in  the  Government  of  this  country  with  respect  to  its 
negotiation  with  France  and,  in  order  to  try  the  sincerity  of 
the  Executive,  he  wishes  for  the  papers.  Does  the  gentleman 
by  this  mean  to  give  the  lie  to  the  Executive?  Because  in  his 
message  he  has  told  the  House  that  he  has  given  power  to  our 
ministers  to  settle  our  disputes  with  the  French  republic,  and 
to  "make  all  reasonable  concessions.' '  What  more  does  the 
gentleman  wish?  Does  he  wish  unreasonable  concessions  to  be 
made  ?  Surely  he  does  not.  Did  anything  appear  in  the  conduct 
of  the  French  Directory  to  show  that  our  Ministers  were  not 
possessed  of  ample  powers  ?  No ;  the  Directory  never  knew  any- 
thing about  their  powers,  at  least  so  far  as  any  official  com- 
munications had  been  received  on  the  subject.  There  could  not, 
therefore,  be  any  ground  upon  which  the  gentleman  could  rest 
his  suspicions.  He  hoped,  therefore,  the  amendment  would  be 
negatived. 

Mr.  Livingston's  amendment  was  adopted.  Mr. 
Allen's  resolution  was  then  adopted  as  amended  by  a 
vote  of  65  to  27. 

The  President  replied  to  the  request  of  Congress  by 
sending  it  every  scrap  of  the  communication  he  had 
received  from  the  envoys  in  Paris.  Whether  he  and  his 
supporters  in  the  House  had  planned  the  entire  affair 
for  the  discomfiture  of  the  opposition,  or  it  had  risen 
naturally  out  of  the  suspicions  of  the  Eepublicans,  its 
success  was  complete  and  even  overwhelming.  There 
was  nothing  at  all  revealed  which  excused  France  for 
her  action.  Indeed,  the  President's  former  communica- 
tion had  been  singularly  reserved  in  its  statement  of 
the  ill  treatment  to  which  the  American  envoys  had  been 


82  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

subjected.  Congress  now  learned  that  they  had  been 
kept  six  months  without  official  recognition,  during  which 
they  had  been  approached  unofficially  by  three  agents  of 
Talleyrand,  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
with  the  suggestion  that  bribes  to  the  governments  of 
France  and  Holland,  under  the  guise  of  "loans,"  might 
gain  their  object.  The  agents  made  their  proposals 
under  the  signatures  of  X,  Y,  and  Z,  and  from  this  the 
whole  affair  became  popularly  known  as  the  "X  Y  Z 
Mission." 

The  envoys  spurned  the  suggestion  of  the  agents, 
saying  "we  will  not  give  you  a  sixpence" — a  reply 
which  was  later  developed  by  the  American  people, 
proud  of  their  envoys  *  action,  into  the  swelling  epigram : 
"Millions  for  defence,  but  not  one  cent  for  tribute." 

Finding  the  envoys  inflexible,  on  April  3,  1798, 
Talleyrand  ordered  Pinckney  and  Marshall  to  quit  the 
country,  but  expressed  a  desire  that  Gerry,  who  he 
thought,  as  a  Republican  would  be  more  amenable  to 
his  plans,  would  remain.  This  desire  was  expressed  so 
strongly  and  significantly  that  Gerry,  fearing  to  preci- 
pitate war  by  not  acceding  to  it,  stayed  on  until  August, 
when  he  received  imperative  instructions  from  the 
American  Government  to  return  home. 

On  Gerry's  assigning  his  reasons  for  leaving,  Talley- 
rand brazenly  denied,  with  great  show  of  indignation, 
all  knowledge  of  the  X  Y  Z  proposals.  Yet  he  could  not 
deny  that  he  himself  had  resorted  to  the  old  policy  of  the 
French  Government  in  American  affairs  of  appealing 
to  the  American  people  over  the  heads  of  their  Govern- 
ment. In  this  appeal  he  greatly  deceived  himself.  The 
whole  country  flamed  with  warlike  defiance.  Mass  meet- 
ings were  held  everywhere  and  addresses  in  support  of 
the  President  were  adopted;  volunteers  offered  them- 
selves for  war,  and  subscriptions  of  money  and  war  ves- 
sels were  made.  The  revolutionary  badge  of  the  time, 
the  black  cockade,  became  a  popular  adornment  of  hats, 
and  patriotic  songs,  such  as  "Hail  Columbia"  and 
"Adams  and  Liberty"  were  written  and  sung. 

The  Republicans,  on  whom  Talleyrand  had  leaned 
for  support,  were  especially  eager  to  avow  their  patriot- 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       83 

ism.  The  French,  said  Jefferson,  "had  so  far  mistaken 
the  party  as  to  suppose  their  first  passion  to  be  attach- 
ment to  France  and  hatred  of  the  Federal  party,  and  not 
love  of  their  country." 

Nevertheless  the  Republicans  were  put  on  the  de- 
fensive and  became  greatly  unpopular.  In  the  House  of 
Representatives,  in  which  they  had  been  of  equal 
strength  with  the  Federalists,  all  the  doubtful  members 
and  many  of  the  former  adherents  of  the  party  joined 


"THE    CONTRAST7' 
From  Lossing's  "Field  Book  of  the  War  of  1812" 

with  the  forces  of  the  administration  and  ratified  the 
bills  of  the  Federalist  Senate  for  increasing  the  army 
and  navy,  purchasing  foundries,  etc.  On  April  30  the 
navy,  which  had  heretofore  been  a  part  of  the  war  de- 
partment, was  placed  in  a  new  department  under  Sec- 
retary Benjamin  Stoddert.  War  vessels  were  author- 
ized to  capture  armed  French  vessels  committing  depre- 
dations on  American  commerce;  merchant  vessels  were 
armed  to  prevent  capture,  and  privateers  were  commis- 
sioned. A  direct  tax  was  imposed,  and  loans  upon  the 
credit  ordered,  as  well  as  a  general  loan  of  $5,000,000. 
On  June  13  commercial  intercourse  with  France  was 
suspended,  and  on  July  9  all  treaties  with  that  country 
were  declared  no  longer  binding,  as  having  been  broken 
by  France. 

The  only  one  of  the  measures  to  which  the  Repub- 
licans offered  determined  opposition  was  that  of  the 
increase  of  the  army  by  provisional  troops.  It  was 
claimed  that  these  were  needed  because  of  a  threatened 


84  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

invasion  of  the  Southern  States  from  the  West  Indies 
by  a  soldier  of  fortune,  Victor  Hugues,  leading  a  force 
of  negroes  with  the  avowed  intention  of  rousing  a  slave 
insurrection.  Since  the  provisional  troops  would  be 
officered  by  appointees  of  the  Federalist  administration, 
the  Republicans  declared  that  advantage  was  being 
taken  of  the  "war  scare"  to  provide  salaries  for  Fed- 
eralist politicians,  and  that  the  army  might  be  used  in 
party  warfare,  although  they  had  the  good  sense  not  to 
make  these  charges  in  the  course  of  the  debate  in  Con- 
gress, very  properly  confining  their  objections  to  ques- 
tions of  constitutionality  and  military  expediency. 

The  bill  for  the  increase  of  the  army  was  passed  on 
May  18  by  a  vote  of  51  to  40. 

In  his  address  at  the  opening  of  the  next  session  of 
Congress  (December,  1798)  President  Adams :  (1)  prom- 
ised a  future  communication  on  relations  with  France, 
and  for  the  present  (2)  discredited  her  professions  of 
conciliatory  intentions,  and  (3)  noted  that  her  recent 
decree  intended  ostensibly  to  restrain  the  depredations 
of  French  cruisers  on  American  commerce  was  a  mock- 
ery, in  that  the  laws  which  were  the  sources  of  the 
depredations  were  not  repealed.  Therefore  he  recom- 
mended (4)  that  our  vigilance  be  unrelaxed.  He  him- 
self, he  said,  had  refused  the  request  of  Talleyrand  to 
reopen  negotiations  and  send  another  minister,  which 
would  be  an  act  of  national  humiliation.  (5)  Accord- 
ingly he  recommended  the  prosecution  of  measures  of 
national  defence,  especially  the  increase  of  the  navy. 

With  these  recommendations  both  the  Senate  and 
House  concurred.  A  more  stringent  act  to  suspend 
commercial  intercourse  with  France  was  passed,  and 
approved  on  February  9,  1799 ;  a  sum  not  exceeding  one 
million  dollars  to  increase  the  navy,  and  a  sum  not  ex- 
ceeding $35,000  to  increase  its  equipment,  were  appro- 
priated on  February  22;  and  a  system  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  navy  was  enacted,  and  approved  on  March 
2.  A  thorough  reorganization  of  the  army  was  made  in 
an  act  approved  March  3. 

On  February  15,  1799,  the  special  message  on  rela- 
tions with   France,  which  had  been  promised  by  the 


THE  BREACH  WITH  FRANCE       85 

President  in  his  opening  address,  was  laid  before  Con- 
gress. It  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  that  article 
of  the  French  Directory  still  remained  in  force  by  which, 
"explicitly  and  exclusively,  American  seamen  were  to 
be  treated  as  pirates  if  found  on  board  ships  of  the 
enemies  of  France.' ' 

In  the  debates  on  French  relations  during  this  ses- 
sion the  Republicans  continued  to  insist  on  giving  the 
French  Government  the  benefit  of  the  doubt.  They 
were,  however,  outvoted. 

Peace  with  France 

During  this  session  of  Congress  the  enmity  of  the 
President  toward  Hamilton  caused  him  to  repudiate  his 
firm  determination  not  to  send  another  minister  to 
France.  In  the  threat  of  war  with  France,  Washington 
had  accepted  the  position  of  lieutenant-general  of  the 
army.  He  appointed  Alexander  Hamilton,  C.  C.  Pinck- 
ney,  and  Henry  Knox,  in  respective  order,  as  next  to 
him  in  command,  thus  placing  the  three  in  the  reverse 
order  of  their  rank  in  the  Revolution.  Indeed,  Washing- 
ton, Hamilton,  and  Pinckney  attended  the  opening  of 
Congress  in  their  new  capacities.  Now  Knox,  the  ab- 
sentee, was  President  Adams's  choice  for  the  position 
next  to  Washington,  and  the  President  yielded  to  the 
wish  of  Washington  only  upon  the  latter  's  express  state- 
ment that  he  would  resign  unless  his  wishes  in  the  mat- 
ter were  respected.  It  could  not  be  expected  that  the 
aging  dictator  of  the  revolution  would  now  be  active 
in  the  field,  and  so  Hamilton  would  practically  occupy 
the  place  of  commander-in-chief.  As  he  was  already 
the  foremost  minister  in  the  cabinet,  and  regarded  by 
many  Federalists  as  the  chief  authority  in  the  party, 
if  not  also  in  the  administration,  Adams  clearly  realized 
that,  in  event  of  war  with  France,  Hamilton  would  in 
all  probability  become  a  popular  hero  and  at  the  next 
election  would  be  chosen  President  instead  of  himself. 
Therefore  he  determined  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  pre- 
vent the  war.  In  the  exercise  of  this  determination  he 
hastened  the  downfall  of  his  party. 


86  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Talleyrand  had  signified  to  Adams  that  William 
Vans  Murray,  minister  to  Holland,  would  be  acceptable 
to  him  as  minister  to  France.  Without  having  given 
any  previous  intimation  of  his  intention,  on  February 
18,  1799,  the  President  nominated  Murray  as  minister 
to  France,  and  a  few  days  thereafter  added  Oliver  Ells- 
worth and  (Patrick  Henry  declining)  William  E.  Davie, 
Governor  of  North  Carolina,  to  the  commission.  The 
friends  of  Hamilton  in  the  cabinet  and  Senate  did 
everything  they  could  to  defeat  the  appointments,  but 
the  Democratic  Republicans,  to  whose  prejudices  the 
President  appealed  by  stigmatizing  the  opposing  Fed- 
eralists as  "the  British  f action,' '  joined  with  the  Adams 
Federalists  and  were  finally  able  to  confirm  the  nomina- 
tions. The  Federalist  party,  whose  whole  strength  had 
been  built  up  on  the  prospect  of  war  with  France,  was 
thus  left  without  a  reason  for  existence. 

Fortunately  for  the  President's  new  policy  the  en- 
voys found  a  new  government  upon  their  arrival  in 
France  during  the  autumn.  Napoleon  had  returned 
from  Egypt,  and  he  became  first  consul.  With  visions 
of  the  conquest  of  Europe  and  Asia  in  his  brain  he 
was  very  glad  to  come  to  terms  with  America,  which 
he  did  in  the  course  of  the  following  year.  The  conven- 
tion, signed  September  30,  1800,  guaranteed  the  safety 
of  American  commerce  for  the  future  at  the  price  of 
the  abandonment  by  the  United  States  of  claims  for 
damages  in  the  past.  The  treaty  was  ratified  by  both 
parties  on  December  21,  1801;  it  abrogated  all  former 
treaties. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Louisiana  Purchase 

Treaty  with  Spain  for  Free  Navigation  of  the  Mississippi — Retrocession  of 
Louisiana  to  France  by  Spain — President  Jefferson's  Letter  to  Robert 
R.  Livingston,  Minister  to  France7*o*n  the  Subject — He  Determines  to 
Purchase  New  Orleans — Debate  in  the  Senaie  on  the  Forcible  Seizure 
of  New  Orleans:  in  Favor,  James  Ross  [Pa.],  Samuel  White  [Del.], 
Gouverneur  Morris  [N.  Y.] ;  Opposed,  John  Breckinridge  [Ky.],  De 
Witt  Clinton  [N.  Y.],  Stevens  T.  Mason  [Va.],  James  Jackson  [Ga.]— 
Purchase  of  Louisiana  Negotiated — Constitutionality  of  the  Act:  Letter 
of  Jefferson  on  the  Subject;  Debate"  in  the  Senate:  Speakers  in  Favor 
of  Constitutionality,  Senator  Jackson,  Robert  Wright  [Md.],  John  Tay- 
lor [Va.],  Wilson  C.  Nicholas  [Va.],  Senator  Breckinridge,  John  Quincy 
Adams  [Mass.];  Opposed,  William  H.  Wells  [Del.],  Timothy  Pickering 
[Mass.],  Uriah  Tracy  [Ct.] — Ratification  of  the  Treaty. 

BY  a  striking  anomaly  President  Jefferson,  the  chief 
advocate  of  the  limitation  of  Federal  powers  to 
those  expressly  granted  in  the  Constitution,  was 
compelled  by  circumstances  to  make  a  greater  extension 
of  those  powers  than  had  ever  before  been  attempted. 

This  action  was  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  the  terri- 
tory owned  by  France  about  the  mouth  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  west  of  that  river  to  the  Pacific  ocean. 

From  the  days  of  the  Confederation  it  was  the 
unanimous  opinion  of  the  fathers  of  the  country  that 
free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  the  nation,  and  therefore  they 
were  unalterably  determined  to  secure  it.  France  had 
ceded  Louisiana  to  Spain  in  1762,  who  held  it  until  1800, 
when  it  was  retroceded,  in  exchange  for  European  ter- 
ritory, to  France.  During  the  possession  by  Spain  that 
country  excluded  other  nations  from  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi.  This  exclusion  was  resisted  by  the 
United  States,  which  was  finally  compelled  to  be  satisfied 
with  a  suspension  of  free  navigation  for  twenty-five 

87 


88  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

years,  this  being  secured  by  John  Jay,  as  special  envoy  to 
Spain,  in  1786.  Owing  to  the  pressure  brought  upon  the 
Federal  Government  by  the  growing  population  of  the 
western  States  (Kentucky  and  Tennessee)  through  pro- 
posed expeditions  against  New  Orleans  in  violation  of 
international  law,  President  Washington,  in  the  summer 
of  1795,  sent  Thomas  Pinckney,  then  minister  to  Great 
Britain,  as  an  envoy  extraordinary  to  Madrid  to  negoti- 
ate a  treaty  which  should  secure  free  navigation  for  the 
United  States  at  once.  He  arrived  at  a  favorable  time, 
Spain,  the  ally  of  Great  Britain  in  the  war  with  France, 
having  been  compelled  by  the  success  of  French  arms 
to  make  a  treaty  with  France.  After  long  negotiations 
a  treaty  between  Spain  and  America  was  concluded  in 
October,  by  which  the  Louisiana  boundary  was  fixed  in 
the  middle  of  the  Mississippi,  southward  to  the  thirty- 
first  degree  of  latitude,  and  navigation  of  the  river  from 
source  to  mouth  was  made  free  to  both  countries,  but 
to  no  others.  New  Orleans  was  made  a  free  port  to 
Americans  for  three  years,  at  the  expiration  of  which 
term  the  privilege  was  to  be  renewed  or  another  port 
given  them  nearby.  It  was  provided  that  free  ships 
should  make  free  goods,  and  privateering  should  be 
punished  as  piracy. 

The  terms  of  the  treaty  were  executed  in  1798,  to  the 
measurable  satisfaction  of  the  western  population,  who, 
however,  still  cherished  the  hope  of  more  thoroughly 
securing  the  right  to  navigate  the  river  by  annexing  all 
the  contiguous  territory. 

The  news  of  the  retrocession  of  Louisiana  to  France 
in  1800  was  accompanied  by  the  alarming  rumor  that 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  intended  to  reestablish  there  a 
strong  imperial  government  which  would  effectually 
block  the  western  development  of  the  American  repub- 
lic. Late  in  1801  the  rumor  was  confirmed  by  the  report 
that  Bonaparte  had  sent  a  great  fleet  and  army  osten- 
sibly against  San  Domingo,  which  was  then  in  insurrec- 
tion, but  really  to  take  over  from  Spain  possession  of 
New  Orleans  after  they  had  subdued  the  rebellion  of 
the  "Black  Republic."  This  created  a  most  uneasy 
feeling  in  the  West,  which,  however,  was  allayed  by  the 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  89 

general  confidence  of  that  Republican  region  in  Presi- 
dent Jefferson.  This  confidence  was  thoroughly  justi- 
fied. 

On  April  18,  1802,  the  President  wrote  to  Robert  R. 
Livingston,  minister  to  France,  inquiring  into  the  nature 
of  the  cession.    In  it  he  said : 

"The  cession  of  Louisiana  and  the  Floridas  by  Spain  to 
France  works  most  sorely  on  the  United  States.  It  completely 
reverses  all  the  political  relations  of  the  United  States,  and  will 
form  a  new  epoch  in  our  political  course.  There  is  on  the  globe 
one  single  spot  the  possessor  of  which  is  our  natural  and  habitual 
enemy.  It  is  New  Orleans,  through  which  the  produce  of  three- 
eighths  of  our  territory  must  pass  to  market.  France,  placing 
herself  in  that  door,  assumes  to  us  the  attitude  of  defiance, 
.  .  .  [and]  seals  the  union  of  two  nations  who,  in  conjunc- 
tion, can  maintain  exclusive  possession  of  the  ocean.  From 
that  moment  we  must  marry  ourselves  to  the  British  fleet  and 
nation,  and  make  the  first  cannon  which  shall  be  fired  in  Europe 
the  signal  for  tearing  up  any  settlement  she  [France]  may  have 
made. ' ' 

According  to  the  treaty  with  Spain  a  place  of  deposit 
for  merchandise  was  assigned  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  in  the  port  of  New  Orleans.  On  October  2,  1802, 
this  concession  was  abrogated  by  the  Spanish  intendant, 
to  the  great  indignation  of  the  Western  merchants. 

The  President  determined  to  solve  the  difficulty  by 
purchasing  New  Orleans  from  its  new  owners.  At  his 
instigation  the  House  of  Representatives  appropriated 
$2,000,000  for  this  purpose,  and  on  January  11,  1803, 
the  Senate  confirmed  his  appointment  of  James  Monroe 
as  special  envoy  to  negotiate,  in  collaboration  with 
Minister  Livingston,  with  Bonaparte,  and,  in  collabora- 
tion with  Charles  Pinckney,  minister  to  Spain,  to  get 
the  necessary  renunciation  of  the  territory  by  his  Cath- 
olic Majesty,  Charles  IV. 

Either  the  ardent  spirits  of  some  of  the  Federalists 
could  not  wait  upon  the  slow  processes  of  diplomacy, 
or  they  grasped  the  opportunity  to  regain  favor  with 
the  populace  and  at  the  same  time  discredit  the  Admin- 
istration.   They  endeavored  in  the  Senate  to  compel  the 


90  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

President  to  seize  at  once  the  territory  and  so  to  nullify 
all  his  peaceful  negotiations.  Unfortunately  for  the 
attempt  the  movers  were  Eastern  and  Northern  Federal- 
ists who  were  forced  to  make  obviously  insincere  pleas 
in  behalf  of  the  Western  and  Southern  people,  since  the 
representatives  of  these  were  unanimous  in  support  of 
the  President's  policy  and  presented  proofs  that  their 
constituents  were  entirely  satisfied  to  let  matters  take  a 
peaceful  course. 

On  February  16,  1803,  James  Ross  [Pa.]  introduced 
resolutions  in  the  Senate  to  the  effect  that  the  infraction 
of  the  treaty  rights  in  regard  to  Louisiana  was  "an 
aggression  hostile  to  the  honor  and  interest' '  of  the 
United  States,  that  it  did  "not  consist  with  the  dignity 
or  safety  of  this  Union"  to  hold  rights  "so  important 
by  a  tenure  so  uncertain, ' '  and  therefore  ' '  that  the  Pres- 
ident be  authorized  to  take  possession' '  of  a  place  of 
deposit  and  adopt  measures  necessary  to  secure  it  to 
the  United  States ;  and  that  he  be  authorized  to  call  into 
service  not  over  50,000  militia,  and  that  $5,000,000  be 
appropriated  in  order  to  carry  out  these  measures. 

John  Breckinridge  [Ky.]  proposed  substitute  reso- 
lutions, which  authorized  the  President  only  to  prepare 
for  such  action  as  he  might  "deem  necessary  for  the 
security  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States." 

Ross  and  Breckinridge  defended  their  respective  res- 
olutions. Other  speakers  were  Samuel  White  [Del.] 
and  Gouverneur  Morris  [N.  Y.],  who  supported  Senator 
Ross's  resolutions;  and  De  Witt  Clinton  [N.  Y.],  Ste- 
vens T.  Mason  [Va.],  and  James  Jackson  [Ga.],  who 
supported  Senator  Breckinridge's  resolutions.  The 
Breckinridge  resolutions  were  adopted. 

Conquest  or  Purchase? 

Senate,  February  16-25,  1903 

Senator  Ross. — Sir,  whom  does  this  infraction  of  the  treaty 
and  the  natural  rights  of  this  country  most  intimately  affect? 
If  the  wound  inflicted  on  national  honor  be  not  sensibly  felt  by 
the  whole  nation,  is  there  not  a  large  portion  of  your  citizens 
exposed  to  immediate  ruin  by  a  continuance  of  this  state  of 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  91 

things?  The  calamity  lights  upon  all  those  who  live  upon  the 
western  waters.  More  than  half  a  million  of  your  citizens  are 
by  this  cut  off  from  a  market.  What  would  be  the  language, 
what  would  be  the  feelings  of  gentlemen  in  this  House,  were  such 
an  indignity  offered  on  the  Atlantic  coast?  What  would  they 
say  if  the  Chesapeake,  the  Delaware,  or  the  Bay  of  New  York 
were  shut  up  and  all  egress  prohibited  by  a  foreign  power  ?  And 
yet  none  of  these  waters  embrace  the  interests  of  so  many  as  the 
Mississippi.  The  numbers  and  the  property  affected  by  shutting 
this  river  are  greater  than  anything  that  could  follow  by  the 
blockade  of  a  river  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  Every  part  of  the 
Union  is  equally  entitled  to  protection,  and  no  good  reason  can 
be  offered  why  one  part  should  be  less  attended  to  than  another. 

Fortunately  for  this  country  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  the 
present  case,  our  national  right  has  been  acknowledged  and 
solemnly  secured  by  treaty.  The  treaty  has  been  long  in  a 
state  of  execution.  It  was  violated  and  denied  without  provo- 
cation or  apology.  The  treaty  then  is  no  security.  This  evident 
right  is  one  the  security  of  which  ought  not  to  be  precarious: 
it  is  indispensable  that  the  enjoyment  of  it  shall  be  placed  be- 
yond all  doubt.  So  important  a  right  will  never  be  secured  while 
the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  is  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the 
Spaniards.  Caprice  and  enmity  occasion  constant  interruption. 
From  the  very  position  of  our  country,  from  its  geographical 
shape,  from  motives  of  complete  independence,  the  command  of 
the  navigation  of  the  river  ought  to  be  in  our  hands. 

Why  submit  to  a  tardy,  uncertain  negotiation  as  the  only 
means  of  regaining  what  you  have  lost :  a  negotiation  with  those 
who  have  wronged  you;  with  those  who  declare  they  have  no 
right  at  the  moment  they  deprive  you  of  yours?  When  in 
possession  you  will  negotiate  with  more  advantage.  You  will 
then  be  in  the  condition  to  keep  others  out.  You  will  be  in  the 
actual  exercise  of  jurisdiction  over  all  your  claims ;  your  people 
will  have  the  benefits  of  a  lawful  commerce.  When  your  deter- 
mination is  known,  you  will  make  an  easy  and  an  honorable  ac- 
commodation with  any  other  claimant.  The  present  possessors 
have  no  pretence  to  complain,  for  they  have  no  right  to  the 
country  by  their  own  confession.  The  western  people  will  dis- 
cover that  you  are  making  every  effort  they  could  desire  for 
their  protection.  They  will  ardently  support  you  in  the  contest, 
if  a  contest  becomes  necessary.  Their  all  will  be  at  stake,  and 
neither  their  zeal  nor  their  courage  need  be  doubted. 

Suppose  that  this  course  be  not  now  pursued.  Let  me  warn 
gentlemen  how  they  trifle  with  the  feelings,  the  hopes,  and  the 


92  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

fears  of  such  a  body  of  men  as  those  who  inhabit  the  western 
waters.  These  men  have  arms  in  their  hands;  the  same  arms 
with  which  they  proved  victorious  over  their  savage  neighbors. 
They  have  a  daring  spirit ;  they  have  ample  means  of  subsistence ; 
and  they  have  men  disposed  to  lead  them  on  to  revenge  their 
wrongs.  Are  you  certain  that  they  will  wait  the  end  of  negotia- 
tions? "When  they  hear  that  nothing  has  been  done  for  their 
immediate  relief,  they  will  probably  take  their  resolution  and 
act.  Indeed,  from  all  we  have  heard,  there  is  great  reason  to 
believe  that  they  will  or  that  they  may  have  already  taken  that 
resolution. 

They  know  the  nature  of  the  obstruction,  they  know  the 
weakness  of  the  country;  they  are  sure  of  present  success,  and 
they  have  a  bold  river  to  bear  them  forward  to  the  place  of 
action.  They  want  only  a  leader  to  conduct  them,  and  it  would 
be  strange  if,  with  such  means  and  such  a  spirit,  a  leader  should 
not  soon  present  himself. 

Senator  Ross  prophesied  that  such  an  expedition 
would  probably  result  in  the  establishment  of  a  new 
nation  under  French  domination,  and  hence  inimical  to 
the  United  States.  He  feared,  indeed,  that  it  would  lead 
to  the  disruption  of  the  Union. 

I  say,  let  us  go  and  redress  ourselves ;  you  will  have  the  whole 
nation  with  you.  On  no  question  since  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence has  the  nation  been  so  unanimous  as  upon  this.  It  is 
true  we  have  a  lamentable  division  of  political  opinion  among 
us  which  has  produced  much  mischief  and  may  produce  much 
greater  than  any  we  have  yet  felt.  But  on  this  question  party 
spirit  ought  to  sink  and  disappear. 

Senator  White. — We  can  never  have  permanent  peace  on 
our  western  waters  till  we  possess  ourselves  of  New  Orleans  and 
such  other  positions  as  may  be  necessary  to  give  us  the  complete 
and  absolute  command  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  We 
have  now  such  an  opportunity  of  accomplishing  this  important 
object  as  may  not  be  presented  again  in  centuries,  and  every 
justification  that  could  be  wished  for  availing  ourselves  of  the 
opportunity.  Spain  has  dared  us  to  the  trial  and  now  bids  us 
defiance;  she  is  yet  in  possession  of  that  country;  it  is  at  this 
moment  within  your  reach  and  within  your  power;  it  offers  a 
sure  and  easy  conquest :  we  should  have  to  encounter  there  now 
only  a  weak,  inactive,  and  unenterprising  people ;  but  how  may 
a  few  months  vary  this  scene  and  darken  our  prospects !  Though 
not  officially  informed,  we  know  that  the  Spanish  provinces  on 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  93 

the  Mississippi  have  been  ceded  to  the  French,  and  that  they  will 
as  soon  as  possible  take  possession  of  them.  What  may  we  then 
expect  ?  When  in  the  last  extremity  we  shall  be  driven  to  arms 
in  defence  of  our  indisputable  rights  where  now  slumbers  on 
his  post  with  folded  arms  the  sluggish  Spaniard,  we  shall  be 
hailed  by  the  vigilant  and  alert  French  grenadier,  and  in  the 
defenceless  garrison  that  would  now  surrender  at  our  approach 
we  shall  see  unfurled  the  standards  that  have  waved  triumphant 
in  Italy,  surrounded  by  impregnable  ramparts  and  defended  by 
the  disciplined  veterans  of  Egypt. 

But,  Mr.  President,  what  is  more  than  all  to  be  dreaded  in 
such  hands,  it  may  be  made  the  means  of  access  and  corruption  to 
your  national  councils  and  a  key  to  your  treasury.  Should 
Bonaparte  approach  the  western  people,  not  in  the  menacing  at- 
titude of  an  enemy,  but  under  the  specious  garb  of  a  protector 
and  a  friend;  should  he  invite  them  to  the  free  navigation  of 
the  river,  and  give  them  privileges  in  trade  not  heretofore  en- 
joyed ;  should  he  send  emissaries  into  their  country  to  court  and 
intrigue  with  them,  he  may  seduce  their  affections  and  thus 
accomplish  by  address  and  cunning  what  even  his  force  might 
not  be  equal  to.  In  this  way,  having  operated  upon  their  pas- 
sions, having  enlisted  in  his  service  their  hopes  and  their  fears, 
he  may  gain  an  undue  ascendancy  over  them.  Should  these 
things  be  effected,  which  God  forbid — but  Bonaparte  in  a  few 
years  has  done  much  more — what,  let  me  ask  honorable  gentle- 
men, will  be  the  consequences?  I  fear  even  to  look  them  in  the 
face.  The  degraded  countries  of  Europe  that  have  been  enslaved 
by  the  divisions  and  distractions  of  their  councils,  produced  by 
similar  means,  afford  us  melancholy  examples.  Foreign  influence 
will  gain  admittance  to  your  national  councils ;  the  First  Consul, 
or  his  interests,  will  be  represented  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States;  this  floor  may  become  the  theater  of  sedition 
and  intrigue.  You  will  have  a  French  faction  in  the  Govern- 
ment, and  that  faction  will  increase  with  the  rapidly  increasing 
population  of  the  western  world.  Whenever  this  period  shall 
arrive  it  will  be  the  crisis  of  American  glory,  and  must  result 
either  in  the  political  subjugation  of  the  Atlantic  States  or  in 
their  separation  from  the  western  country ;  and  I  am  sure  there 
is  no  American  who  does  not  view  as  one  of  the  greatest  evils 
that  could  befall  us  the  dismemberment  of  this  Union.  Honor- 
able gentlemen  may  wrap  themselves  up  in  their  present  im- 
aginary security  and  say  that  these  things  are  afar  off,  or  that 
they  can  never  happen ;  but  let  me  beseech  of  them  to  look  well 
to  the  measures  they  are  now  pursuing,  for,  on  the  wisdom,  the 


94  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

promptness,  and  energy  of  those  measures  will  depend  whether 
they  shall  happen  or  not.  And  let  me  tell  them,  sir,  that  the 
want  of  firmness  or  judgment  in  the  Cabinet  will  be  no  apology 
for  the  disgrace  and  ruin  of  the  nation. 

Senator  Breckinridge. — Early  in  the  session  the  House  of 
Representatives  was  informed  by  a  communication  from  the 
President  that  the  Governor  of  New  Orleans  had  strongly  op- 
posed the  conduct  of  the  Intendant,  declaring  that  he  was  acting 
without  authority  in  refusing  the  deposit. 

The  Spanish  Minister,  who  resides  here  and  who  stands  de- 
servedly high  in  the  confidence  of  his  government,  was  clearly  of 
opinion  that  the  Intendant  was  acting  without  authority,  and 
that  redress  would  be  given  so  soon  as  the  competent  authority 
could  interpose.  From  this  state  of  things  what  is  the  course 
any  civilized  nation  who  respects  her  character  or  rights  would 
pursue?  There  is  but  one  course,  which  is  admitted  by  writers 
on  the  laws  of  nations  as  the  proper  one,  and  is  thus  described  by 
Vattel  in  his  book,  Sees.  336,  338 : 

"A  sovereign  ought  to  show,  in  all  his  quarrels,  a  sincere  desire  of 
rendering  justice  and  preserving  peace.  He  is  obliged  before  he  takes  up 
arms,  and  after  having  taken  them  up  also,  to  oFer  equitable  conditions, 
and  then  alone  his  arms  become  just  against  an  obstinate  enemy,  who  re- 
fuses to  listen  to  justice  or  to  equity.  His  own  advantage,  and  that  of 
human  society,  oblige  him  to  attempt,  before  he  takes  up  arms,  all  the 
pacific  methods  of  obtaining  either  the  reparation  of  the  injury,  or  a  just 
satisfaction.  This  moderation,  this  circumspection,  is  so  much  the  more 
proper,  and  commonly  even  indispensable,  as  the  action  we  take  for  an 
injury  does  not  always  proceed  from  a  design  to  offend  us,  and  is  some- 
times a  mistake  rather  than  an  act  of  malice:  frequently  it  even  happens 
that  the  injury  is  done  by  inferior  persons,  without  their  sovereign  having 
any  share  in  it;  and  on  these  occasions  it  is  not  natural  to  presume  that 
he  would  refuse  us  a  just  satisfaction. ' ' 

This  is  the  course  which  the  President  has  taken  and  in  which 
the  House  of  Representatives  have  expressed,  by  their  resolution, 
their  confidence. 

But  the  gentleman  is  afraid  that  if  we  do  not  immediately 
seize  the  country  we  shall  lose  the  golden  opportunity  of  doing 
it.  Would  your  national  honor  be  free  from  imputation  by  a 
conduct  of  such  inconsistency  and  duplicity  ?  A  minister  is  sent 
to  the  offending  nation  with  an  olive-branch  for  the  purpose  of 
an  amicable  discussion  and  settlement  of  differences  and,  before 
he  has  scarcely  turned  his  back,  we  invade  the  territories  of  that 
nation  with  an  army  of  fifty  thousand  men!  Would  such  con- 
duct comport  with  the  genius  and  principles  of  our  Republic, 
whose  true  interest  is  peace  and  who  has  hitherto  professed  to 
cultivate  it  with  all  nations?  Would  not  such  a  procedure  sub- 
ject us  to  the  just  censure  of  the  world,  and  to  the  strongest 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  95 

jealousy  of  those  who  have  possessions  near  to  us  ?  Would  such 
a  procedure  meet  the  approbation  of  even  our  own  citizens,  whose 
lives  and  fortunes  would  be  risked  in  the  conflict?  And  would 
it  not  be  policy  inexcusably  rash  to  plunge  this  country  into  war 
to  effect  that  which  the  President  not  only  thinks  can  be  effected 
but  is  now  actually  in  a  train  of  negotiation?  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  negotiation  should  fail,  how  different  will  be  the  ground 
on  which  we  stand !  We  stand  acquitted  by  the  world,  and,  what 
is  of  more  consequence,  by  our  own  citizens  and  our  own  con- 
sciences. But  one  sentiment  will  then  animate  and  pervade  the 
whole,  and  from  thenceforth  we  will  take  counsel  only  from  our 
courage. 

Senator  Clinton. — If  I  were  called  upon  to  prescribe  a  course 
of  policy  most  important  for  this  country  to  pursue,  it  would  be 
to  avoid  European  connections  and  wars.  It  is  our  interest  and 
our  duty  to  cultivate  peace  with  sincerity  and  good  faith.  As 
a  young  nation,  pursuing  industry  in  every  channel  and  adven- 
turing commerce  in  every  sea,  it  is  highly  important  that  we 
should  not  only  have  a  pacific  character  but  that  we  should  really 
deserve  it.  If  we  manifest  an  unwarrantable  ambition  and  a 
rage  for  conquest,  we  unite  all  the  great  powers  of  Europe 
against  us.  The  security  of  all  the  European  possessions  in  our 
vicinity  will  eternally  depend,  not  upon  their  strength,  but  upon 
our  moderation  and  justice.  Look  at  the  Canadas — at  the  Span- 
ish territories  to  the  south — at  the  British,  Spanish,  French,  Dan- 
ish, and  Dutch  West  India  islands — at  the  vast  countries  to  the 
west,  as  far  as  where  the  Pacific  rolls  its  waves;  consider  well 
the  eventful  consequences  that  would  result  if  we  were  possessed 
by  a  spirit  of  conquest;  consider  well  the  impression  which  a 
manifestation  of  that  spirit  will  make  upon  those  who  would 
be  affected  by  it.  If  we  are  to  rush  at  once  into  the  territory  of 
a  neighboring  nation  with  fire  and  sword  for  the  misconduct  of 
a  subordinate  officer,  will  not  our  national  character  be  greatly 
injured  ?  Will  we  not  be  classed  with  the  robbers  and  destroyers 
of  mankind?  Will  not  the  nations  of  Europe  perceive  in  this 
conduct  the  germ  of  a  lofty  spirit  and  an  enterprising  ambition 
which  will  level  them  to  the  earth  when  age  has  matured  our 
strength  and  expanded  our  powers  of  annoyance,  unless  they 
combine  and  cripple  us  in  our  infancy?  May  not  the  conse- 
quences be  that  we  must  look  out  for  a  naval  force  to  protect 
our  commerce ;  that  a  close  alliance  will  result ;  that  we  will  be 
thrown  at  once  into  the  ocean  of  European  politics,  where  every 
wave  that  rolls  and  every  wind  that  blows  will  agitate  our  bark  ? 
Is  this  a  desirable  state  of  things?    Will  the  people  of  this  coun- 


96  GREAT   AMERICAN   DEBATES 

try  be  seduced  into  it  by  all  the  colorings  of  rhetoric  and  all 
the  arts  of  sophistry — by  vehement  appeals  to  their  pride  and 
artful  addresses  to  their  cupidity?  No,  sir.  Three-fourths  of 
the  American  people  (I  assert  it  boldly  and  without  fear  of  con- 
tradiction) are  opposed  to  this  measure.  And  would  you  take 
up  arms  with  a  millstone  hanging  around  your  neck?  How 
would  you  bear  up,  not  only  against  the  force  of  the  enemy,  but 
against  the  irresistible  current  of  public  opinion?  The  thing, 
sir,  is  impossible,  the  measure  is  worse  than  madness ;  it  is  wicked 
beyond  the  powers  of  description 

It  is  in  vain  for  the  mover  to  oppose  these  weighty  considera- 
tions by  menacing  us  with  an  insurrection  of  the  western  States, 
that  may  eventuate  in  their  seizure  of  New  Orleans  without 
the  authority  of  Government;  their  throwing  themselves  into 
the  arms  of  a  foreign  power;  or  in  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 
Such  threats  are  doubly  improper — improper  as  they  respect 
the  persons  to  whom  they  are  addressed,  because  we  are  not  to 
be  deterred  from  the  performance  of  our  duty  by  menaces  of 
any  kind,  from  whatever  quarter  they  may  proceed;  and  it  is 
no  less  improper  to  represent  our  western  brethren  as  a  lawless, 
unprincipled  banditti  who  would  at  once  release  themselves  from 
the  wholesome  restraints  of  law  and  order,  forego  the  sweets  of 
liberty,  and  either  renounce  the  blessings  of  self-government  or, 
like  the  Goths  and  Vandals,  pour  down  with  the  irresistible  force 
of  a  torrent,  upon  the  countries  below  and  carry  havoc  and  deso- 
lation in  their  train.  A  separation  by  a  mountain  and  a  different 
outlet  into  the  Atlantic  cannot  create  any  natural  collision  be- 
tween the  Atlantic  and  western  States;  on  the  contrary,  they 
are  bound  together  by  a  community  of  interests  and  a  similarity 
of  language  and  manners — by  the  ties  of  consanguinity  and 
friendship  and  a  sameness  of  principles.  There  is  no  reflecting 
and  well-principled  man  in  this  country  who  can  view  the  sev- 
erance of  the  States  without  horror  and  who  does  not  consider  it 
as  a  Pandora's  box  which  will  overwhelm  us  with  every  calam^ 
ity ;  and  it  has  struck  me  with  not  a  little  astonishment  that,  on 
the  agitation  of  almost  every  great  political  question,  we  should 
be  menaced  with  this  evil.  Last  session,  when  a  bill  repealing  a 
judiciary  act  was  under  consideration,  we  were  told  that  the 
eastern  States  would  withdraw  themselves  from  the  Union  if 
it  should  obtain;  and  we  are  now  informed  that,  if  we  do  not 
accede  to  the  proposition  before  us,  the  western  States  will  hoist 
the  standard  of  revolt  and  dismember  the  empire.  Sir,  these 
threats  are  calculated  to  produce  the  evil  they  predict  and  they 
may  possibly  approximate  the  spirit  they  pretend  to  warn  us 


THE    LOUISIANA   PURCHASE  97 

against.  They  are  at  all  times  unnecessary,  at  all  times  improper, 
at  all  times  mischievous,  and  ought  never  to  be  mentioned  within 
these  walls. 

Senator  Jackson. — Peace  is  the  interest  of  all  republics,  and 
war  their  destruction;  it  loads  and  fetters  them  with  debt  and 
entangles  not  only  the  present  race  but  posterity.  Peace,  sir, 
has  been  the  ruling  policy  of  the  United  States  throughout  all 
her  career.  If  we  show  the  citizens  that  we  are  not  willing  to 
go  to  war  and  load  them  with  taxes,  they  will  all  be  with  us 
when  a  necessity  for  war  arrives.  What,  sir,  was  the  policy  of 
America  from  the  commencement  of  the  Eevolution?  At  that 
day  did  we  hastily  go  to  war?  No;  we  tried  every  peaceable 
means  to  avoid  it,  and  those  means  induced  a  unanimity  in  the 
people. 

At  the  present  moment,  sir,  the  people  are  averse  to  war; 
they  are  satisfied  with  the  steps  of  the  executive;  they  wish 
negotiation.  If  you  adopt  these  resolutions  they  will  be  still 
divided;  if  you  negotiate  and  fail  in  that  negotiation — if  you 
cannot  obtain  a  redress  of  the  injury  which  they  feel  as  well 
as  you,  they  will  go  all  lengths  with  you  and  be  prepared  for 
any  event ;  you  will  have  this  advantage :  you  will  be  unanimous, 
and  America  united  is  a  match  for  the  world.  In  such  a  case, 
sir,  every  man  will  be  anxious  to  march,  he  would  go  himself  if 
called  on,  and  whether  the  sluggish  Spaniard  or  the  French 
grenadier  commands  New  Orleans  it  must  fall ;  they  will  not  be 
able  to  resist  the  brave  and  numerous  hosts  of  our  western  breth- 
ren, who  are  so  much  interested  in  the  injury  complained  of. 
New  Orleans  must  belong  to  the  United  States ;  it  must  come  to 
us  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it  will  naturally  fall  into  our 
hands  by  gradual  but  inevitable  causes,  as  sure  and  certain  as 
manufactures  arise  from  increased  population  and  the  plentiful 
products  of  agriculture  and  commerce.  But  let  it  be  noticed 
that,  if  New  Orleans  by  a  refusal  of  justice  falls  into  our  hands 
by  force,  the  Floridas,  as  sure  as  fate,  fall  with  it.  Good  faith 
forbids  encroachment  on  a  pacific  ally;  but  if  hostility  shows 
itself  against  us,  interest  demands  it ;  Georgia  in  such  case  could 
not  do  without  it.  God  and  nature  have  destined  New  Orleans 
and  the  Floridas  to  belong  to  this  great  and  rising  empire.  As 
natural  bounds  to  the  south  are  the  Atlantic,  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  and  the  Mississippi,  and  the  world  at  some  future  day 
cannot  hold  them  from  us. 

Senator  Morris. — In  my  opinion,  there  is  nothing  worth 
fighting  for  but  national  honor ;  for  in  the  national  honor  is  in- 
volved the  national  independence.  I  know  that  a  State  may  find 


98  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

itself  in  such  unpropitious  circumstances  that  prudence  may 
force  a  wise  Government  to  conceal  the  sense  of  indignity.  But 
the  insult  should  be  engraved  on  tablets  of  brass  with  a  pencil  of 
steel.  And,  when  that  time  and  chance  which  happen  to  all  shall 
bring  forward  the  favorable  moment,  then  let  the  avenging  arm 
strike  him.  It  is  by  avowing  and  maintaining  this  stern  principle 
of  honor  that  peace  can  be  preserved. 

What  is  the  state  of  things?  There  has  been  a  cession  of 
the  island  of  New  Orleans  and  of  Louisiana  to  France.  Whether 
the  Floridas  have  also  been  ceded  is  not  yet  certain.  Now,  sir, 
had  Spain  a  right  to  make  this  cession  without  our  consent? 
Gentlemen  have  taken  it  for  granted  that  she  had.  But  I  deny 
the  position.  No  nation  has  a  right  to  give  another  a  dangerous 
neighbor  without  her  consent.  He  who  renders  me  insecure,  he 
who  hazards  my  peace  and  exposes  me  to  imminent  danger,  com- 
mits an  act  of  hostility  against  me  and  gives  me  the  rights  conse- 
quent on  that  act.  It  is  among  the  first  limitations  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  rights  of  property  that  we  must  so  use  our  own  as 
not  to  injure  another ;  and  it  is  under  the  immediate  sense  of  this 
restriction  that  nations  are  bound  to  act  toward  each  other. 

But  it  is  not  this  transfer  alone.  There  are  circumstances 
both  in  the  time  and  in  the  manner  of  it  which  deserve  attention. 
I  ask,  was  this  a  public  treaty?  No.  Was  official  notice  of  it 
given  to  the  Government  of  this  country  ?  Was  it  announced  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States  in  the  usual  forms  of  civility 
between  nations  who  duly  respect  each  other?  It  was  not. 
Had  this  transaction  been  intended  fairly  it  would  have  been 
told  frankly.  But  it  was  secret  because  it  was  hostile.  The  First 
Consul,  in  the  moment  of  terminating  his  differences  with  you, 
sought  the  means  of  future  influence  and  control.  He  found 
and  secured  a  pivot  for  that  immense  lever  by  which,  with  po- 
tent arm,  he  means  to  subvert  your  civil  and  political  institu- 
tions. Has  the  King  of  Spain,  has  the  First  Consul  of  France, 
no  means  of  making  such  communication  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States?  Yes,  sir,  we  have  a  minister  in  Spain;  we 
have  a  minister  in  France.  Nothing  was  easier,  and  yet  nothing 
has  been  done.  Our  first  magistrate  has  been  treated  with  con- 
tempt ;  and  through  him  our  country  has  been  insulted. 

With  that  meek  and  peaceful  spirit  now  so  strongly  recom- 
mended we  submitted  to  this  insult  and  what  followed?  That 
which  might  have  been  expected — a  violation  of  our  treaty.  An 
open  and  direct  violation  by  a  public  officer  of  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment. Furthermore,  the  Intendant,  as  if  determined  to  try 
the  extent  of  your  meekness,  forbids  to  your  citizens  all  com- 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  99 

munication  with  those  who  inhabit  the  shores  of  the  Mississippi. 
Though  they  should  be  starving  the  Spaniard  is  made  criminal 
who  should  give  them  food.  Fortunately  the  waters  of  the  river 
are  potable,  or  else  we  should  be  precluded  from  the  common 
benefits  of  nature,  the  common  bounty  of  heaven.  What  then, 
I  ask,  is  the  amount  of  this  savage  conduct?  Sir,  it  is  war. 
Open  and  direct  war.  And  yet  gentlemen  recommend  peace 
and  forbid  us  to  take  up  the  gauntlet  of  defiance. 

Sir,  I  repeat  to  you  that  I  wish  for  peace — real,  lasting,  hon- 
orable peace.  To  obtain  and  secure  this  blessing  let  us  by  a  bold 
and  decisive  conduct  convince  the  powers  of  Europe  that  we  are 
determined  to  defend  our  rights;  that  we  will  not  submit  to 
insult;  that  we  will  not  bear  degradation.  This  is  the  conduct 
which  becomes  a  generous  people.  This  conduct  will  command 
the  respect  of  the  world.  Nay,  sir,  it  may  rouse  all  Europe  to 
a  proper  sense  of  their  situation.  They  see  that  the  balance 
of  power  on  which  their  liberties  depend  is,  if  not  destroyed,  in 
extreme  danger.  They  know  that  the  dominion  of  France  has 
been  extended  by  the  sword  over  millions  who  groan  in  the 
servitude  of  their  new  masters.  These  unwilling  subjects  are 
ripe  for  revolt.  The  empire  of  the  Gauls  is  not  like  that  of 
Rome,  secured  by  political  institutions.  It  may  yet  be  broken. 
But,  whatever  may  be  the  conduct  of  others,  let  us  act  as  be- 
comes ourselves.  I  cannot  believe,  with  my  honorable  colleague, 
that  three-fourths  of  America  are  opposed  to  vigorous  measures. 
I  cannot  believe  that  they  will  meanly  refuse  to  pay  the  sums 
needful  to  vindicate  their  honor  and  support  their  independ- 
ence. Sir,  this  is  a  libel  on  the  people  of  America.  They  will 
disdain  submission  to  the  proudest  sovereign  on  earth.  They 
have  not  lost  the  spirit  of  seventy-six.  But,  sir,  if  they  are  so 
base  as  to  barter  their  rights  for  gold;  if  they  are  so  vile  that 
they  will  not  defend  their  honor;  they  are  unworthy  of  the 
rank  they  enjoy,  and  it  is  no  matter  how  soon  they  are  parceled 
out  among  better  masters. 

Senator  Mason. — The  resolutions  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Ross]  go  at  once  to  the  point  of  war.  In- 
deed, he  told  us  that  it  is  not  war — it  was  only  going  and  tak- 
ing peaceable  possession  of  New  Orleans !  How  did  the  gentle- 
man mean  to  go,  and  how  take  peaceable  possession?  Would 
he  march  at  the  head  of  the  posse  comitatusf  No!  he  would 
march  at  the  head  of  fifty  thousand  militia,  and  he  would  send 
forth  the  whole  naval  and  regular  force,  armed  and  provided 
with  military  stores.  He  would  enter  their  island,  set  fire  to 
their  warehouses  and  bombard  their  city,  desolate  their  farms 


100  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

and  plantations,  and,  having  swept  all  their  habitations  away, 
after  wading  through  streams  of  blood,  he  would  tell  those  who 
had  escaped  destruction:  we  do  not  come  here  to  make  war 
on  you — we  are  a  very  moderate,  tender-hearted  kind  of  neigh- 
bors and  are  come  here  barely  to  take  peaceable  possession  of 
your  territory!  Why,  sir,  this  is  too  naked  not  to  be  an  insult 
to  the  understanding  of  a  child! 

But  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Morris]  did  not 
trifle  with  the  Senate  in  such  a  style;  he  threw  off  the  mask 
at  once,  and,  in  a  downright  manly  way,  fairly  told  us  that  he 
liked  war — that  it  was  his  favorite  mode  of  negotiating  between 
nations;  that  war  gave  dignity  to  the  species — that  it  drew 
forth  the  most  noble  energies  of  humanity!  That  gentleman 
scorned  to  tell  us  that  he  wished  to  take  peaceable  possession. 
No !  He  could  not  snivel ;  his  vast  genius  spurned  huckstering ; 
his  mighty  soul  would  not  bear  to  be  locked  up  in  a  petty  ware- 
house at  New  Orleans ;  he  was  for  war — terrible,  glorious  havoc ! 
He  tells  you  plainly  that  you  are  not  only  to  recover  your 
rights,  but  you  must  remove  your  neighbors  from  their  posses- 
sions and  repel  those  to  whom  they  may  transfer  the  soil;  that 
Bonaparte's  ambition  is  insatiable;  that  he  will  throw  in  col- 
onies of  Frenchmen,  who  will  settle  on  your  frontier  for  thou- 
sands of  miles  round  about  (when  he  comes  there)  ;  and  he 
does  not  forget  to  tell  you  of  the  imminent  dangers  which 
threaten  our  good  old  friends,  the  English.  He  tells  you  that 
New  Orleans  is  the  lock  and  you  must  seize  upon  the  key,  and 
shut  the  door  against  this  terrible  Bonaparte  or  he  will  come 
with  his  legions,  and,  as  Gulliver  served  the  Lilliputians,  wash 
you  off  the  map.  Not  content,  in  his  great  care  for  your  honor 
and  glory,  as  a  statesman  and  a  warrior  he  turns  prophet  to 
oblige  you — your  safety  in  the  present  year  or  the  next  does 
not  satisfy  him — his  vast  mind,  untrammeled  by  the  ordinary 
progressions  of  chronology,  looks  over  ages  to  come  with  a  fac- 
ulty bordering  on  omniscience,  and  conjures  us  to  come  forward 
and  regulate  the  decrees  of  Providence  at  ten  thousand  years' 
distance. 

"We  have  been  told  that  Spain  had  no  right  to  cede  Louisiana 
to  Prance ;  that  she  had  ceded  to  us  the  privilege  of  deposit,  and 
had,  therefore,  no  right  to  cede  her  territory  without  our  con- 
sent! Are  gentlemen  disposed  to  wage  war  in  support  of  this 
principle?  Because  she  has  given  us  a  little  privilege — a  mere 
indulgence  on  her  territory — is  she  thereby  constrained  from 
doing  anything  for  ever  with  her  immense  possessions?  No 
doubt  if  the  gentleman  [Mr.  Morris]  were  to  be  the  negotiator 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  101 

on  this  occasion  he  would  say:  "You  mean  to  cede  New  Or- 
leans; no,  gentlemen,  I  beg  your  pardon,  you  cannot  cede  that, 
for  we  want  it  ourselves;  and,  as  to  the  Floridas,  it  would  be 
very  indiscreet  to  cede  that,  as,  in  all  human  probability,  we 
shall  want  that  also  in  less  than  five  hundred  years  from  this 
day;  and  then,  as  to  Louisiana,  you  surely  could  not  think  of 
that,  for  in  something  less  than  a  thousand  years,  in  the  natural 
order  of  things,  our  population  will  progress  toward  that  place 
also." 

We  are  also  told  that  the  power  of  the  Chief  Consul  is 
so  great  that  he  puts  up  and  pulls  down  all  the  nations  of  the 
old  world  at  discretion,  and  that  he  can  do  so  with  us.  Yet  we 
are  told  by  the  wonderful  statesman  who  gives  us  this  awful  in- 
formation that  we  must  go  to  war  with  this  maker  and  destroyer 
of  governments.  If,  after  the  unceasing  pursuit  of  empire  and 
conquest,  which  is  thus  presented  to  us,  we  take  possession  of 
his  territory,  from  the  gentleman's  own  declarations,  what  are 
we  to  expect,  only  that  this  wonderful  man — who  never  aban- 
dons an  object;  who  thinks  his  own  and  the  nation's  honor 
pledged  to  go  through  whatever  he  undertakes — will  next  attack 
us?  Does  the  gentleman  think  that  this  terrible  picture,  which 
his  warm  imagination  has  drawn,  is  a  conclusive  argument  for 
proceeding  to  that  war  which  he  recommends? 

On  April  11,  1803,  the  day  before  Monroe's  arrival 
at  Paris,  Bonaparte,  who  was  greatly  in  need  of  money 
to  prosecute  his  designs  of  European  conquest,  invited 
Minister  Livingston  to  make  an  offer  for  the  whole  of 
the  vast  territory  known  as  Louisiana.  Monroe  and  Liv- 
ingston offered  $10,000,000.  The  price  was  finally  fixed 
at  $15,000,000,  a  sum  which  included  $3,750,000  in  claims 
of  American  citizens  against  France  for  depredations 
on  commerce.1    The  treaty  was  signed  on  April  30,  1803. 

It  is  probable  that  Bonaparte,  in  making  the  treaty, 
broke  his  faith  with  Spain,  there  having  been  a  secret 
understanding  on  the  retrocession  of  the  territory  from 
Spain  to  France  that  the  territory  would  not  be  alien- 
ated. Spain  at  once  protested  against  the  sale  to  Amer- 
ica, for  she  saw  that  Florida,  now  surrounded  by  an 
American  territory,  would  on  the  first  occasion  fall  into 

1For  many  years  afterward  the  settlement  of  these  "French  Spoliation 
Claims,' '  as  they  were  called,  arose  again  and  again  in  Congress,  creating 
extended  discussions. 


102  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  hands  of  the  United  States,  and  that  her  possession 
of  Mexico  was  also  greatly  endangered  by  contiguity 
with  the  expanding  American  republic.  Indeed,  Spain 
did  not  consent  to  the  transfer  of  Louisiana  for  a  num- 
ber of  years,  during  which  she  preserved  a  hostile  atti- 
tude toward  the  United  States  that,  in  the  opinion  of 
a  number  of  American  statesmen,  justified  our  going 
to  war  against  her.  The  Federalist  opponents  of  the 
treaty  in  the  Senate  seized  upon  her  protest  as  an  argu- 
ment against  ratification,  saying  that  Bonaparte  was 
selling  what  he  had  no  right  to  dispose  of,  and  therefore 
that  we  were  not  acquiring  a  clear  title,  and  that  the 
cloud  upon  it  might  assume  the  proportions  of  a  storm 
of  war  sweeping  over  the  sea  from  the  tricked  and 
justly  indignant  Spain.  The  force  of  this  argument, 
however,  was  weakened  by  the  one  they  had  previously 
made  in  urging  the  forcible  seizure  of  New  Orleans 
while  it  was  yet  in  possession  of  the  ' '  sluggish  Spaniard 
slumbering  on  his  post,"  and  before  it  was  occupied  by 
"the  vigilant  French  grenadier." 

The  Democrats  were  exultant  over  the  treaty,  hailing 
it  as  the  greatest  achievement  yet  accomplished  by  the 
nation — one  that  assured  for  ages  to  come  the  growth 
and  development  as  well  as  the  integrity  of  the  Union. 
Jefferson  in  private  acknowledged  that  the  act  was  not 
warranted  by  the  national  charter,  asserting,  however, 
that  it  could  be  cured  of  all  constitutional  defects  by  the 
ratification  of  Congress.  In  a  letter  to  the  Administra- 
tion leader  in  the  Senate,  John  Breckinridge,  Jefferson 
wrote,  on  August  12, 1803 : 

"The  Constitution  has  made  no  provision  for  our  holding 
foreign  territory,  still  less  for  incorporating  foreign  nations 
into  our  Union.  The  executive,  in  seizing  the  fugitive  occur- 
rence which  so  much  advances  the  good  of  their  country,  have 
done  an  act  beyond  the  Constitution.  The  legislature,  in  cast- 
ing behind  them  metaphysical  subtleties  and  risking  themselves 
like  faithful  servants,  must  ratify  and  pay  for  it  and  throw 
themselves  on  their  country  for  doing  for  them,  unauthorized, 
what  we  know  they  would  have  done  for  themselves  had  they 
been  in  a  situation  to  do  it.  It  is  the  case  of  a  guardian  invest- 
ing the  money  of  his  ward  in  purchasing  an  important  adjacent 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  103 

territory  and  saying  to  him  when  of  age,  'I  did  this  for  your 
good ;  I  pretend  to  no  right  to  bind  you ;  you  may  disavow  me 
and  I  must  get  out  of  the  scrape  as  I  can;  I  thought  it  my 
duty  to  risk  myself  for  you.'  " 

The  policy  suggested  by  the  President  was  followed 
by  the  Democratic  Senators  with  great  tactical  adroit- 
ness. Fortunately  for  them  the  first  Federalist  speaker 
who  opposed  the  treaty  did  so,  not  on  the  ground  of  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  actions  of  its  American  nego- 
tiators, but  because  of  the  cloud  on  the  title  of  the  pur- 
chased territory.  This  objection  was  readily  answered, 
and  the  Opposition  was  thereby  placed  on  the  defensive, 
while  the  Administration  was  shown  to  be,  on  this  point, 
exercising  its  constitutional  right.  This  gave  the  ap- 
pearance that  its  main  action  was  constitutional,  and 
therefore  the  Democrats  generously  admitted  that,  in  the 
apparently  minor  points  (though  really  major),  there 
was  room  for  debate  as  to  whether  or  not  the  letter  of 
the  Constitution  had  been  followed,  and  appealed  to 
the  patriotism  of  their  opponents  to  waive  the  points, 
since  all  defects  in  the  treaty  could  be  removed  by  the 
Senate's  action.  This  policy  won  over  all  but  the  ex- 
treme partisans  among  the  Federalists,  and  the  treaty 
was  ratified  by  a  vote  of  26  to  5. 

In  this  debate  the  following  speakers  were  promi- 
nent: James  Jackson  [Ga.],  Eobert  Wright  [Md.],  John 
Taylor  [Va.],  Wilson  C.  Nicholas  [Va.],  John  Breckin- 
ridge [Ky.],  and  John  Quincy  Adams  [Mass.],  in  the 
affirmative;  and  William  H.  Wells  [Del.],  Timothy  Pick- 
ering [Mass.],  and  Uriah  Tracy  [Conn.],  in  the  negative. 
Mr.  Adams  had  recently  been  appointed  to  the  Senate. 
Although  he  was  nominally  a  Federalist  his  previous 
career  as  a  diplomat  had  removed  him  from  the  evil 
influence  of  partisanship  as  well  as  inclined  him  to  give 
a  free  rein  to  the  President  in  treaty  making.  Accord- 
ingly he  supported  the  treaty,  while  confessing  the  con- 
stitutional objections  to  it,  and  advising  that  the  Consti- 
tution be  so  amended  as  to  permit,  without  question,  such 
territorial  extension.  In  such  recommendation  he  was 
in  thorough  accord  with  the  view  of  the  President. 


104  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Constitutionality  of  the  Louisiana  Pukchase 
Senate,  November  3,  1803 

Senator  Wells. — There  are  two  acts  necessary  to  be  per- 
formed to  carry  the  present  treaty  into  effect — one  by  the 
French  Government,  the  other  by  our  own.  They  are  to  deliver 
us  a  fair  and  effectual  possession  of  the  ceded  territory;  and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  are  we  to  pay  the  purchase  money. 
We  have  already  authorized  the  President  to  receive  possession. 
This  cooperation  on  our  part  was  requisite  to  enable  the  French 
to  comply  with  the  stipulation  they  had  made;  they  could  not 
deliver  unless  somebody  was  appointed  to  receive.  In  this  view 
of  the  subject,  the  question  which  presents  itself  to  my  mind  is: 
who  shall  judge  whether  the  French  Government  does,  or  does 
not,  faithfully  comply  with  the  previous  condition?  The  bill 
on  your  table  gives  to  the  President  this  power.  I  am  for  our 
retaining  and  exercising  it  ourselves.  I  may  be  asked :  why  not 
delegate  this  power  to  the  President?  Sir,  I  answer  by  inquir- 
ing why  we  should  delegate  it  ?  To  us  it  properly  belongs ;  and, 
unless  some  advantage  will  be  derived  to  the  United  States,  it 
shall  not  be  transferred  with  my  consent.  Congress  will  be  in 
session  at  the  time  that  the  delivery  of  the  ceded  territory  takes 
place ;  and,  if  we  should  then  be  satisfied  that  the  French  have 
executed  with  fidelity  that  part  of  the  treaty  which  is  incum- 
bent upon  them  first  to  perform,  I  pledge  myself  to  vote  for 
the  payment  of  the  purchase  money.  This  appears  to  me,  argu- 
ing upon  general  principles,  to  be  the  course  which  ought  to 
be  pursued,  even  supposing  there  were  attending  this  case  no 
particular  difficulties.  But  in  this  especial  case  are  there  not 
among  the  archives  of  the  Senate  sufficient  documents,  and 
which  have  been  withheld  from  the  House  of  Representatives, 
to  justify  an  apprehension  that  the  French  Government  was 
not  invested  with  the  capacity  to  convey  this  property  to  us, 
and  that  we  shall  not  receive  that  kind  of  possession  which  is 
stipulated  for  by  the  treaty?  I  am  not  permitted,  by  the 
order  of  this  body,  to  make  any  other  than  this  general  refer- 
ence to  those  documents.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  have 
strongly  impressed  me  with  an  opinion  that,  even  if  possession 
is  rendered  to  us,  the  territory  will  come  into  our  hands  with- 
out any  title  to  justify  our  holding  it. 

Senator  Jackson. — The  honorable  gentleman  [Mr.  Wells] 
has  said  that  the  French  have  no  title,  and,  having  no  title 
herself,  we  can  derive  none  from  her.  Is  not,  I  ask,  the  King 
of   Spain's   proclamation,   declaring  the   cession   of   Louisiana 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  105 

to  France,  and  his  orders  to  his  governor  and  officers  to  deliver 
it  to  France,  a  title?    Do  nations  give  any  other? 

The  treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso  [whereby  Spain  ceded  Louisiana 
back  to  France]  was  the  groundwork  of  the  cession,  and,  what- 
ever might  have  been  the  terms  to  be  performed  by  France,  the 
King  of  Spain's  proclamation  and  orders  have  declared  to  all 
the  world  that  they  were  complied  with. 

Last  session  we  were  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  taking 
immediate  possession  of  the  island  of  New  Orleans  in  the  face 
of  two  nations,  and  now  we  entertain  doubts  if  we  can  combat 
the  weakest  of  those  powers;  and  we  are  further  told  we  are 
going  to  sacrifice  the  immense  sum  of  fifteen  millions  of  dollars, 
and  have  to  go  to  war  with  Spain  for  the  country  afterwards; 
when,  last  session,  war  was  to  take  place  at  all  events,  and  no 
costs  were  equal  to  the  object.  Gentlemen  seem  to  be  dis- 
pleased because  we  have  procured  it  peaceably,  and  at  probably 
ten  times  less  expense  than  it  would  have  cost  us  had  we  taken 
forcible  possession  of  New  Orleans  alone,  which,  I  am  persuaded, 
would  have  involved  us  in  a  war  which  would  have  saddled 
us  with  a  debt  of  from  one  to  two  hundred  millions,  and  perhaps 
have  lost  New  Orleans,  and  the  right  of  deposit,  after  all.  I 
again  repeat,  sir,  that  I  do  not  believe  that  Spain  will  venture 
war  with  the  United  States.  I  believe  she  dare  not ;  if  she  dare, 
she  will  pay  the  costs.  The  Floridas  will  be  immediately  ours; 
they  will  almost  take  themselves.  The  inhabitants  pant  for  the 
blessings  of  your  equal  and  wise  government;  they  ardently 
long  to  become  a  part  of  the  United  States.  An  officer,  duly 
authorized,  and  armed  with  the  bare  proclamation  of  the  Presi- 
dent, would  go  near  to  take  them ;  the  inhabitants  by  hundreds 
would  flock  to  his  standard,  the  very  Spanish  force  itself  would 
assist  in  their  reduction ;  it  is  composed  principally  of  the  Irish 
brigade  and  Creoles — the  former  disaffected,  and  the  latter  the 
dregs  of  mankind. 

Exclusive,  however,  of  the  loss  of  the  Floridas,  the  road 
to  Mexico  is  now  open  to  us,  which,  if  Spain  acts  in  an  amicable 
way,  I  wish  may,  and  hope  will,  be  shut,  as  respects  the  United 
States,  for  ever.  For  these  reasons,  I  think,  sir,  Spain  will 
avoid  a  war  in  which  she  has  nothing  to  gain  and  everything 
to  lose. 

Senator  Wright. — The  honorable  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Wells]  says  we  ought  to  be  satisfied  that  the  possession 
stipulated  by  the  treaty  shall  have  been  delivered  up  before 
we  pass  this  bill.  Has  he  forgot  that,  by  the  Constitution,  the 
President  is  to  superintend  the  execution  of  the  law?     Or  has 


106  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

lie  forgot  that  treaties  are  the  supreme  law  of  the  land?  Or 
why,  while  he  professes  to  respect  this  Constitution,  does  he 
oppose  the  commission  of  the  execution  of  this  law  to  that  organ 
of  the  Government  to  which  it  has  been  assigned  by  the  Con- 
stitution? Why,  I  ask,  does  he  distrust  the  President?  Has 
he  not  been,  throughout  the  whole  of  this  business,  very  much 
alive  to  the  peaceful  acquisition  of  this  immense  territory,  and 
the  invaluable  waters  of  the  Mississippi?  A  property  which, 
but  the  other  day,  we  were  told  was  all-important,  and  so 
necessary  to  our  political  existence  that  if  it  was  not  obtained 
the  western  people  would  sever  themselves  from  the  Union. 
This  property,  for  which  countless  millions  were  then  proposed 
to  be  expended,  and  the  best  blood  of  our  citizens  to  be  shed, 
and  which  then  was  to  be  had  at  all  hazards,  per  fas  aut  per 
nefas,  seems  now  to  have  lost  its  worth,  and  it  would  seem  as  if 
some  gentlemen  could  not  be  satisfied  with  the  purchase,  be- 
cause our  title  was  not  recorded  in  the  blood  of  its  inhabitants. 
But  that  this  is  not  the  wish  of  the  American  people  has  been 
unequivocally  declared  by  their  immediate  representatives  in 
Congress,  as  well  as  by  this  House,  who  had  each  expressed  their 
approbation  of  the  peaceful  title  we  had  acquired,  by  majorities 
I  thought  not  to  be  misunderstood.  And  the  gentleman,  al- 
though he  voted  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  now  again 
calls  on  us  to  investigate  the  title.    It  is  certainly  too  late. 

Senator  Pickering. — A  treaty  to  be  obligatory  must  not 
contravene  the  Constitution,  nor  contain  any  stipulations  which 
transcend  the  powers  therein  given  to  the  President  and  Sen- 
ate. The  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  French 
republic,  professing  to  cede  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  ap- 
peared to  him  to  contain  such  an  exceptionable  stipulation — 
a  stipulation  which  cannot  be  executed  by  any  authority  now 
existing.  It  is  declared  in  the  third  article,  that  "the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated  in  the  Union 
of  the  United  States/'  But  neither  the  President  and  Senate, 
nor  the  President  and  Congress,  are  competent  to  such  an  act 
of  incorporation. 

The  assent  of  each  individual  State  is  necessary  for  the  ad- 
mission of  a  foreign  country  as  an  associate  in  the  Union;  in 
like  manner  as  in  a  commercial  house,  the  consent  of  each  mem- 
ber would  be  necessary  to  admit  a  new  partner  into  the  com- 
pany; and  whether  the  assent  of  every  State  to  such  an  indis- 
pensable amendment  is  attainable  is  uncertain. 

I  have  never  doubted  the  right  of  the  United  States  to 
acquire  new  territory,  either  by  purchase  or  by  conquest,  and 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  107 

to  govern  the  territory  so  acquired  as  a  dependent  province; 
and  in  this  way  might  Louisiana  become  a  territory  of  the 
United  States,  and  receive  a  form  of  government  infinitely  pref- 
erable to  that  to  which  its  inhabitants  are  now  subject. 

Senator  Taylor. — There  have  been,  Mr.  President,  two  ob- 
jections made  against  the  treaty;  one  that  the  United  States 
cannot  constitutionally  acquire  territory;  the  other  that  the 
treaty  stipulates  for  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the 
Union;  a  stipulation  which  the  treaty-making  power  is  unable 
to  comply  with.  To  these  objections  I  shall  endeavor  to  give  an- 
swers not  heretofore  urged. 

Before  confederation  each  State  in  the  Union  possessed  a 
right,  as  attached  to  sovereignty,  of  acquiring  territory,  by  war, 
purchase,  or  treaty.  This  right  must  be  either  still  possessed 
or  forbidden  both  to  each  State  and  to  the  General  Government, 
or  transferred  to  the  General  Government.  It  is  not  possessed 
by  the  States  separately,  because  war  and  compacts  with  foreign 
powers  and  with  each  other  are  prohibited  to  a  separate  State ; 
and  no  other  means  of  acquiring  territory,  exist.  By  depriving 
every  State  of  the  means  of  exercising  the  right  of  acquiring 
territory,  the  Constitution  has  deprived  each  separate  State  of 
the  right  itself.  Neither  the  means  nor  the  right  of  acquiring 
territory  are  forbidden  to  the  United  States;  on  the  contrary, 
in  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution,  Congress  is  empowered 
"to  dispose  of  and  regulate  the  territory  belonging  to  the 
United  States. ' '  This  recognizes  the  right  of  the  United  States 
to  hold  territory.  The  means  of  acquiring  territory  consist 
of  war  and  compact ;  both  are  expressly  surrendered  to  Congress 
and  forbidden  to  the  several  States;  and  no  right  in  a  separate 
State  to  hold  territory  without  its  limits  is  recognized  by  the 
Constitution,  nor  any  mode  of  effecting  it  possible,  consistent 
with  it.  The  means  of  acquiring  and  the  right  of  holding  terri- 
tory, being  both  given  to  the  United  States,  and  prohibited  to 
each  State,  it  follows  that  these  attributes  of  sovereignty  once 
held  by  each  State  are  thus  transferred  to  the  United  States; 
and  that,  if  the  means  of  acquiring  and  the  right  of  holding 
are  equivalent  to  the  right  of  acquiring  territory,  then  this  right 
merged  from  the  separate  States  to  the  United  States,  as  indis- 
pensably annexed  to  the  treaty-making  power,  and  the  power 
of  making  war;  or,  indeed,  is  literally  given  to  the  General 
Government  by  the  Constitution. 

Senator  Tracy. — The  paragraph  in  the  Constitution  which 
says  that  "new  States  may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  this 
Union "  has  been  quoted  to  justify  this  treaty.     To  this  two 


108  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

answers  may  be  given,  either  of  which  are  conclusive.  First, 
if  Congress  have  the  power  collectively  of  admitting  Louisiana, 
it  cannot  be  vested  in  the  President  and  Senate  alone.  Secondly, 
Congress  have  no  power  to  admit  new  foreign  states  into  the 
Union  without  the  consent  of  the  old  partners.  The  article  of 
the  Constitution,  if  any  person  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine 
it,  refers  to  domestic  States  only,  and  not  at  all  to  foreign 
states;  and  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Congress  should, 
by  a  majority  only,  admit  new  foreign  states,  and  swallow  up, 
by  it,  the  old  partners,  when  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  are 
made  requisite  for  the  least  alteration  in  the  Constitution.  The 
words  of  the  Constitution  are  completely  satisfied  by  a  construc- 
tion which  shall  include  only  the  admission  of  domestic  States, 
who  were  all  parties  to  the  Revolutionary  war,  and  to  the  com- 
pact ;  and  the  spirit  of  the  association  seems  to  embrace  no  other. 
But,  I  repeat  it,  if  the  Congress  collectively  has  this  power  the 
President  and  Senate  cannot,  of  course,  have  it  exclusively. 

I  think,  sir,  that,  from  a  fair  construction  of  the  Constitution 
and  an  impartial  view  of  the  nature  and  principles  of  our  asso- 
ciation, the  President  and  Senate  have  not  the  power  of  thus 
obtruding  upon  us  Louisiana. 

Senator  Breckinridge. — No  gentleman  has  yet  ventured  to 
deny  that  it  is  incumbent  on  the  United  States  to  secure  to  the 
citizens  of  the  western  waters  the  uninterrupted  use  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi. Under  this  impression  of  duty  what  has  been  the 
conduct  of  the  General  Government,  and  particularly  of  the 
gentlemen  now  in  the  opposition,  for  the  last  eight  months? 
When  the  right  of  deposit  was  violated  by  a  Spanish  officer 
without  authority  from  his  government,  these  gentlemen  con- 
sidered our  national  honor  so  deeply  implicated,  and  the  rights 
of  the  western  people  so  wantonly  violated,  that  no  atonement 
or  redress  was  admissible,  except  through  the  medium  of  the 
bayonet.  Negotiation  was  scouted  at.  It  was  deemed  pusillani- 
mous, and  was  said  to  exhibit  a  want  of  fellow-feeling  for  the 
western  people,  and  a  disregard  to  their  essential  rights.  For- 
tunately for  their  country  the  counsel  of  these  gentlemen  was 
rejected,  and  their  war  measures  negatived.  The  so  much 
scouted  process  of  negotiation  was,  however,  persisted  in,  and, 
instead  of  restoring  the  right  of  deposit  and  securing  more  ef- 
fectually for  the  future  our  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi, 
the  Mississippi  itself  was  acquired,  and  everything  which  apper- 
tained to  it.  I  did  suppose  that  those  gentlemen  who,  at  the 
last  session,  so  strongly  urged  war  measures  for  the  attainment 
of  this  object,  upon  an  avowal  that  it  was  too  important  to  trust 


THE    LOUISIANA   PURCHASE  109 

to  the  tardy  and  less  effectual  process  of  negotiation,  would 
have  stood  foremost  in  carrying  the  treaty  into  effect,  and  that 
the  peaceful  mode  by  which  it  was  acquired  would  not  lessen 
with  them  the  importance  of  the  acquisition. 

Permit  me  to  examine  some  of  the  principal  reasons  which 
are  deemed  so  powerful  by  gentlemen  as  to  induce  them  to 
vote  for  the  destruction  of  this  treaty.  Unfortunately  for  the 
gentlemen,  no  two  of  them  can  agree  on  the  same  set  of  objec- 
tions; and,  what  is  still  more  unfortunate,  I  believe  there  is 
no  two  of  them  concur  in  any  one  objection.  In  one  thing  only 
they  seem  to  agree,  and  that  is  to  vote  against  the  bill.  An  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  White]  considered  the 
price  to  be  enormous.  An  honorable  gentleman  from  Connecti- 
cut, who  has  just  sat  down  [Mr.  Tracy] ,  says  he  has  no  objection 
whatever  to  the  price;  it  is,  he  supposes,  not  too  much.  An 
honorable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Pickering]  says 
that  France  acquired  no  title  from  Spain,  and  therefore  our 
title  is  bad.  The  same  gentleman  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Tracy] 
says  he  has  no  objection  to  the  title  of  France;  he  thinks  it  a 
good  one.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Pickering] 
contends  that  the  United  States  cannot,  under  the  Constitution, 
acquire  foreign  territory.  The  gentleman  from  Connecticut  is 
of  a  different  opinion,  and  has  no  doubt  but  that  the  United 
States  can  acquire  and  hold  foreign  territory ;  but  that  Congress 
alone  have  the  power  of  incorporating  that  territory  into  the 
Union.  Of  what  weight,  therefore,  ought  all  their  lesser  objec- 
tions be  entitled  to  when  they  are  at  war  among  themselves  on 
the  greater  one? 

The  same  gentleman  has  told  us  that  this  acquisition  will, 
from  its  extent,  soon  prove  destructive  to  the  Confederacy. 

This  is  an  old  and  hackneyed  doctrine :  that  a  republic  ought 
not  to  be  too  extensive.  But  the  gentleman  has  assumed  two 
facts  and  then  reasoned  from  them:  First,  that  the  extent  is 
too  great;  and,  secondly,  that  the  country  will  be  soon  popu- 
lated. I  would  ask,  sir,  what  is  his  standard  extent  for  a  repub- 
lic? How  does  he  come  at  that  standard?  Our  boundary  is 
already  extensive.  Would  his  standard  extent  be  violated  by 
including  the  island  of  Orleans  and  the  Floridas?  I  presume 
not,  as  all  parties  seem  to  think  their  acquisition,  in  part  or  in 
whole,  essential.  Why  not,  then,  acquire  territory  on  the  west 
as  well  as  on  the  east  side  of  the  Mississippi  ?  Is  the  Goddess  of 
Liberty  restrained  by  water  courses?  Is  she  governed  by 
geographical  limits?  Is  her  dominion  on  this  continent  con- 
fined to  the  east  side  of  the  Mississippi?     So  far  from  be- 


110  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

lieving  in  the  doctrine  that  a  Republic  ought  to  be  con- 
fined within  narrow  limits,  I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
more  extensive  its  dominion  the  more  safe  and  more  durable 
it  will  be.  In  proportion  to  the  number  of  hands  you  intrust 
the  precious  blessings  of  a  free  government  to,  in  the  same  pro- 
portion do  you  multiply  the  chances  for  their  preservation.  I 
entertain,  therefore,  no  fears  for  the  Confederacy  on  account 
of  its  extent. 

The  gentleman  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Tracy]  admits  ex- 
plicitly that  Congress  may  acquire  territory  and  hold  it  as  a 
territory,  but  cannot  incorporate  it  into  the  Union.  By  this 
construction  he  admits  the  power  to  acquire  territory,  a  modifi- 
cation infinitely  more  dangerous  than  the  unconditional  ad- 
mission of  a  new  State ;  for,  by  his  construction,  territories  and 
citizens  are  considered  and  held  as  the  property  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  and  may  consequently  be  used  as 
dangerous  engines  in  the  hands  of  the  Government  against  the 
States  and  people. 

The  same  gentleman,  in  reply  to  the  observations  which  fell 
from  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  as  to  the  admission  of 
new  States,  observes  that,  although  Congress  may  admit  new 
States,  the  President  and  Senate,  who  are  but  a  component 
part,  cannot.  Apply  this  doctrine  to  the  case  before  us.  How 
could  Congress  by  any  mode  of  legislation  admit  this  country 
into  the  Union  until  it  was  acquired  1  And  how  can  this  acqui- 
sition be  made  except  through  the  treaty-making  power  ?  Could 
the  gentleman  rise  in  his  place  and  move  for  leave  to  bring  in 
a  bill  for  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  and  its  admission  into  the 
Union?  I  take  it  that  no  transaction  of  this  or  any  other  kind 
with  a  foreign  power  can  take  place  except  through  the  execu- 
tive department,  and  that  in  the  form  of  a  treaty,  agreement,  or 
convention.  When  the  acquisition  is  made  Congress  can  then 
make  such  disposition  of  it  as  may  be  expedient. 

Senator  Adams. — It  has  been  argued  that  the  bill  ought  not 
to  pass  because  the  treaty  itself  is  unconstitutional,  or,  to  use 
the  words  of  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut,  an  extra-consti- 
tutional act;  because  it  contains  engagements  which  the  powers 
of  the  Senate  were  not  competent  to  ratify,  the  powers  of  Con- 
gress not  competent  to  confirm,  and,  as  two  of  the  gentlemen 
have  contended,  not  even  the  legislatures  of  the  number  of 
States  requisite  to  effect  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  are 
adequate  to  sanction.  It  is,  therefore,  say  they,  a  nullity;  we 
cannot  fulfill  our  part  of  its  conditions,  and  on  our  failure  in 
the  performance  of  any  one  stipulation,  France  may  consider 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE  111 

herself  as  absolved  from  the  obligations  of  the  whole  treaty  on 
her.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  free  to  confess  that  the  third  arti- 
cle, and  more  especially  the  seventh,  contain  engagements  plac- 
ing us  in  a  dilemma  from  which  I  see  no  possible  mode  of  extri- 
cating ourselves  but  by  an  amendment,  or  rather  an  addition, 
to  the  Constitution.  The  gentleman  from  Connecticut  [Mr. 
Tracy],  both  on  a  former  occasion  and  in  this  day's  debate, 
appears  to  me  to  have  shown  this  to  demonstration.  But  what  is 
this  more  than  saying  that  the  President  and  Senate  have  bound 
the  nation  to  engagements  which  require  the  cooperation  of 
more  extensive  powers  than  theirs  to  carry  them  into  execution  ? 
Nothing  is  more  common,  in  the  negotiations  between  nation  and 
nation,  than  for  a  minister  to  agree  to  and  sign  articles  beyond 
the  extent  of  his  powers.  This  is  what  your  ministers,  in  the 
very  case  before  you,  have  confessedly  done.  It  is  well  known 
that  their  powers  did  not  authorize  them  to  conclude  this  treaty ; 
but  they  acted  for  the  benefit  of  their  country,  and  this  House 
by  a  large  majority  has  advised  to  the  ratification  of  their  pro- 
ceedings. Suppose,  then,  not  only  that  the  ministers  who 
signed,  but  the  President  and  Senate  who  ratified  this  compact, 
have  exceeded  their  powers.  Suppose  that  the  other  House  of 
Congress,  who  have  given  their  assent  by  passing  this  and  other 
bills  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  obligations  it  imposes  on  us, 
have  exceeded  their  powers.  Nay,  suppose  even  that  the  major- 
ity of  States  competent  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  other  cases 
could  not  amend  it  in  this  without  exceeding  their  powers — 
and  this  is  the  extremest  point  to  which  any  gentleman  on  this 
floor  has  extended  his  scruples — suppose  all  this,  and  there  still 
remains  in  the  country  a  power  competent  to  adopt  and  sanction 
every  part  of  our  engagements,  and  to  carry  them  entirely  into 
execution.  For,  notwithstanding  the  objections  and  apprehen- 
sions of  many  individuals,  of  many  wise,  able,  and  excellent 
men,  in  various  parts  of  the  Union,  yet  such  is  the  public  favor 
attending  the  transaction  which  commenced  by  the  negotiation 
of  this  treaty,  and  which,  I  hope,  will  terminate  in  our  full,  un- 
disturbed, and  undisputed  possession  of  the  ceded  territory, 
that  I  firmly  believe  if  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  amply 
sufficient  for  the  accomplishment  of  everything  for  which  we 
have  contracted,  shall  be  proposed,  as  I  think  it  ought;  it  will 
be  adopted  by  the  legislature  of  every  State  in  the  Union.  We 
can  therefore  fulfill  our  part  of  the  conventions,  and  this  is  all 
that  France  has  a  right  to  require  of  us. 

Senator  Nicholas. — The  gentleman  from  Connecticut  [Mr. 
Tracy]  must  consider  the  grant  of  power  to  the  legislature  as  a 


112  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

limitation  of  the  treaty-making  power,  for  he  says  "that  the 
power  to  admit  new  States  and  to  make  citizens  is  given  to  Con- 
gress, and  not  to  the  treaty-making  power";  therefore  an  en- 
gagement in  a  treaty  to  do  either  of  these  things  is  unconstitu- 
tional. I  cannot  help  expressing  my  surprise  at  that  gentle- 
man's giving  that  opinion,  and  I  think  myself  justifiable  in 
saying  that  if  it  is  now  his  opinion  it  was  not  always  so.  The 
contrary  opinion  is  the  only  justification  of  that  gentleman's 
approbation  of  the  British  treaty,  and  of  his  vote  for  carry- 
ing it  into  effect.  By  that  treaty  a  great  number  of  per- 
sons had  a  right  to  become  American  citizens  immediately; 
not  only  without  a  law  but  contrary  to  an  existing  law. 
And  by  that  treaty  many  of  the  powers  specially  given  to 
Congress  were  exercised  by  the  treaty-making  power.  It 
is  for  gentlemen  who  supported  that  treaty  to  reconcile  the 
construction  given  by  them  to  the  Constitution  in  its  applica- 
tion to  that  instrument  with  their  exposition  of  it  at  this  time. 

The  proposal  of  Senator  Adams  to  amend  the  Con- 
stitution in  order  to  legalize  the  treaty  was  not  sup- 
ported, being  out  of  line  with  the  previous  policy  of  the 
Federalists  and  not  agreeable  to  the  desires  of  the  Dem- 
ocrats now  that  they  were  in  power  in  the  executive  as 
well  as  legislative  branches  of  the  Government.  Accord- 
ingly it  was  not  acted  upon,  and  thus  the  ratification  of 
the  Louisiana  Purchase  marked  the  greatest  step  for- 
ward that  had  yet  been  taken  in  the  broad  construction 
of  the  Constitution  in  the  matter  of  increasing  the  power 
of  the  President. 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Embargo 

Messages  of  President  Thomas  Jefferson  on  Great  Britain's  Violation  of 
American  Commercial  Eights — Resolutions  of  Congress  to  Prohibit 
British  Importations — Debate:  Speech  of  John  Eandolph  [Va.]  in  Op- 
position: "The  Folly  of  Eetaliation ' ' — The  President  Refuses  to  Sign 
the  Monroe-Pinkney  Treaty  with  Great  Britain — Great  Britain's  "Or- 
ders in  Council" — Congress  in  Eetaliation  Enacts  an  Embargo — De- 
bate: in  Favor,  Eichard  M.  Johnson  [Ky.],  John  Love  [Va.],  James 
Fisk  [Vt.],  George  W.  Campbell  [Tenn.];  Opposed,  John  Eandolph 
[Va.],  Josiah  Masters  [N.  Y.],  Philip  B.  Key  [Md.] — Popular  Opposi- 
tion to  the  Embargo — Opposing  Views  of  Embargo  by  James  Hillhouse 
[Conn.]  and  William  B.  Giles  [Va.]  on  "Public  Honor  vs.  Private  In- 
terest"— New  England  Threatens  Secession — Great  Britain  Invites  a 
Compromise  with  America — Congress  Eeplaces  Embargo  with  a  Non- 
Intercourse  Act — Obituary  of  the  Embargo  by  Eepresentative  James 
Sloan  [N.  J.J. 

A  STATE  of  war  had  existed  between  France  and 
Great  Britain  since  May  16,  1803,  though  actual 
hostilities  did  not  begin  until  two  years  later. 
In  May,  1805,  the  British  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case  of 
the  captured  American  vessel  Essex  reversed  the  former 
rule  of  the  British  admiralty  courts,  viz.,  that  in  time  of 
war  "landing  goods  and  paying  duties  in  a  neutral  coun- 
try breaks  the  continuity  of  the  voyage,  and  so  legal- 
izes the  trade, ' '  and  held  that  such  transshipment,  if  evi- 
dently fraudulent,  did  not  absolve  the  vessel  from  cap- 
ture and  condemnation.  Immediately  following  the  de- 
cision British  warships  and  privateers  at  once  began  to 
prey  on  American  vessels  which  were  carrying  through 
neutral  countries  the  trade  between  France  and  her  col- 
onies. 

Messages  on  British  Aggression 

President  Jefferson  brought  the  matter  to  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress  at  its  next  session  in  December,  1805, 

113 


114  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

in  his  message.  Referring  to  the  anomaly  that  the  com- 
merce with  France  for  which  American  vessels  were 
captured  and  condemned  by  Great  Britain  was  practiced 
with  impunity  by  her  own  merchantmen,  he  said : 

New  principles  have  been  interpolated  into  the  law  of  na- 
tions, founded  neither  in  justice  nor  the  usage  or  acknowledg- 
ment of  nations.  According  to  these,  a  belligerent  takes  to  itself 
a  commerce  with  its  own  enemy  which  it  denies  to  a  neutral, 
on  the  ground  of  its  aiding  that  enemy  in  the  war.  But  reason 
revolts  at  such  an  inconsistency,  and,  the  neutral  having  equal 
right  with  the  belligerent  to  decide  the  question,  the  interests 
of  our  constituents,  and  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  authority 
of  reason,  the  only  umpire  between  just  nations,  impose  on  us 
the  obligation  of  providing  an  effectual  and  determined  opposi- 
tion to  a  doctrine  so  injurious  to  the  rights  of  peaceable  nations. 
Indeed,  the  confidence  we  ought  to  have  in  the  justice  of  others 
still  countenances  the  hope  that  a  sounder  view  of  those  rights 
will,  of  itself,  induce  from  every  belligerent  a  more  correct  ob- 
servance of  them. 

On  January  17,  1806,  the  President  sent  a  special 
message  to  the  Senate  on  the  subject,  giving  an  account 
of  the  actions  he  had  taken,  and  asking  that  Congress 
take  the  matter  into  consideration.    He  said : 

The  right  of  a  neutral  to  carry  on  commercial  intercourse 
with  every  part  of  the  dominions  of  a  belligerent,  permitted 
by  the  laws  of  the  country  (with  the  exception  of  blockaded 
ports  and  contraband  of  war),  was  believed  to  have  been  de- 
cided between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  by  the  sen- 
tence of  their  commissioners  mutually  appointed  to  decide  on 
that  and  other  questions  of  difference  between  the  two  nations, 
and  by  the  actual  payment  of  the  damages  awarded  by  them 
against  Great  Britain  for  the  infractions  of  that  right.  When, 
therefore,  it  was  perceived  that  the  same  principle  was  revived, 
with  others  more  novel,  and  extending  the  injury,  instructions 
were  given  to  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States 
at  the  Court  of  London,  and  remonstrances  duly  made  by  him 
on  the  subject,  as  will  appear  by  documents  transmitted  here- 
with. These  were  followed  by  a  partial  and  temporary  suspen- 
sion only,  without  any  disavowal  of  the  principle.  He  has, 
therefore,  been  instructed  to  urge  this  subject  anew,  to  bring 
it  more  fully  to  the  bar  of  reason,  and  to  insist   on  rights 


THE    EMBARGO  115 

too  evident  and  too  important  to  be  surrendered.  In  the  mean 
time  the  evil  is  proceeding,  under  adjudications  founded  on 
the  principle  which  is  denied.  Under  these  circumstances  the 
subject  presents  itself  for  the  consideration  of  Congress. 

The  Senate  referred  the  matter  to  a  committee,  which 
on  February  12,  1806,  presented  a  resolution  that  im- 
portation of  British  manufactures  should  be  prohibited 
until  equitable  arrangements  had  been  made  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  on  the  differences 
between  the  two  governments.  This  was  adopted  on 
April  10,  by  a  vote  of  19  to  9. 

On  January  29,  1806,  a  similar  resolution  had  been 
proposed  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  by  Andrew 
Gregg  [Pa.].  Other  resolutions  of  the  same  import 
were  presented  by  Joseph  Clay  [Pa.]  on  February  5, 
and  by  Joseph  B.  Nicholson  [Md.]  on  February  10.  The 
subject  came  up  for  consideration  on  March  5,  and  was 
debated  until  March  17,  when  Mr.  Nicholson's  resolution 
was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  87  to  35. 

These  measures  were  evidently  inspired  by  the  Pres- 
ident and  his  Secretary  of  State,  James  Madison,  with 
both  of  whom  commercial  retaliation  was  a  favorite 
policy.1 

The  chief  opponent  of  the  measure  was  John  Ran- 
dolph [Va.]  the  free  lance,  who  on  this  question  allied 
himself  with  the  Federalists. 


1  One  of  the  last  acts  of  Jefferson  as  Secretary  of  State  under  Washing- 
ton had  been  the  submission  to  Congress  of  a  Report  on  American  Com- 
merce, in  which  he  suggested  the  removal  of  European  restrictions  on  our 
trade  by  countervailing  acts  where  friendly  arrangements  could  not  be 
made.  In  furtherance  of  this  recommendation  Madison  submitted  to  the 
House  in  January,  1794,  his  famous  Commercial  Resolutions,  laying  addi- 
tional duties  on  manufactures  of  nations  which  had  no  commercial  treaties 
with  the  United  States.  Great  Britain  was  especially  aimed  at,  and  when, 
during  the  debate,  that  government  seized  certain  American  vessels  trading 
with  the  French  West  Indies,  the  restrictions  were  laid  aside  in  favor  of 
the  more  drastic  measure  of  an  embargo.  This  was  ordered  on  March  26, 
1794.  It  prevented  the  embarkation  for  thirty  days  of  all  ships  in  American 
ports  bound  for  foreign  ports.  The  obnoxious  orders  were  revoked  by 
Great  Britain,  and  the  embargo  was  removed. 

A  very  interesting  report  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  Congress  in 
reference  to  the  above  matters  is  found  in  Timothy  Pitkin 's  ' '  Political  His- 
tory of  the  United  States,"  Volume  II,  pages  406  to  412. 


116  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  Folly  of  Retaliation 
John  Randolph 

I  am  perfectly  aware  that  on  entering  upon  this  subject  we 
go  into  it  manacled,  handcuffed,  and  tongue-tied;  gentlemen 
know  that  our  lips  are  sealed  on  subjects  of  momentous  foreign 
relations,  which  are  indissolubly  linked  with  the  present  ques- 
tion and  which  would  serve  to  throw  a  great  light  on  it  in 
every  respect  relevant  to  it.  I  will,  however,  endeavor  to  hobble 
over  the  subject  as  well  as  my  fettered  limbs  and  palsied  tongue 
will  enable  me  to  do  it. 

I  am  not  surprised  to  hear  this  resolution  discussed  by  its 
friends  as  a  war  measure.  They  say  (it  is  true)  that  it  is  not 
a  war  measure;  but  they  defend  it  on  principles  which  would 
justify  none  but  war  measures,  and  seem  pleased  with  the  idea 
that  it  may  prove  the  forerunner  of  war.  If  war  is  necessary 
— if  we  have  reached  this  point — let  us  have  war.  But  while 
I  have  life  I  will  never  consent  to  these  incipient  war  measures, 
which,  in  their  commencement,  breathe  nothing  but  peace, 
though  they  plunge  at  last  into  war.  It  has  been  well  observed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  behind  me  [Mr.  J.  Clay] 
that  the  situation  of  this  nation  in  1793  was  in  every  respect 
different  from  that  in  which  it  finds  itself  in  1806.  Let  me  ask, 
too,  if  the  situation  of  England  is  not  since  materially  changed  ? 
Gentlemen  who,  it  would  appear  from  their  language,  have  not 
got  beyond  the  horn-book  of  politics,  talk  of  our  ability  to  cope 
with  the  British  navy,  and  tell  us  of  the  war  of  our  Revolution. 
What  was  the  situation  of  Great  Britain  then?  She  was  then 
contending  for  the  empire  of  the  British  channel,  barely  able  to 
maintain  a  doubtful  equality  with  her  enemies,  over  whom  she 
never  gained  the  superiority  until  Rodney's  victory  of  the 
twelfth  of  April.1  What  is  her  present  situation?  The  com- 
bined fleets  of  France,  Spain,  and  Holland  are  dissipated,  they 
no  longer  exist.  I  am  not  surprised  to  hear  men  advocate  these 
wild  opinions,  to  see  them  goaded  on  by  a  spirit  of  mercantile 
avarice,  straining  their  feeble  strength  to  excite  the  nation  to 
war,  when  they  have  reached  this  stage  of  infatuation,  that  we 
are  an  overmatch  for  Great  Britain  on  the  ocean.  It  is  mere 
waste  of  time  to  reason  with  such  persons.  They  do  not  deserve 
anything  like  serious  refutation.  The  proper  arguments  for 
such  statesmen  are  a  straight  waistcoat,  a  dark  room,  water 
gruel,  and  depletion. 

1  Vice-Admiral  George  Brydges  Rodney  defeated  the  French  Admiral 
DeGrasse  in  the  West  Indies,  April  12,  1782. 


THE    EMBARGO  117 

What  is  the  question  in  dispute  ?  The  carrying  trade.  What 
part  of  it?  The  fair,  the  honest,  and  the  useful  trade  that  is 
engaged  in  carrying  our  own  productions  to  foreign  markets, 
and  bringing  back  their  productions  in  exchange?  No,  sir.  It 
is  that  carrying  trade  which  covers  enemy's  property,  and  car- 
ries the  coffee,  the  sugar,  and  other  West  India  products,  to  the 
mother  country.  No,  sir,  if  this  great  agricultural  nation  is  to 
be  governed  by  Salem  and  Boston,  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 
and  Baltimore  and  Norfolk  and  Charleston,  let  gentlemen  come 
out  and  say  so ;  and  let  a  committee  of  public  safety  be  appointed 
from  those  towns  to  carry  on  the  Government.  I,  for  one,  will 
not  mortgage  my  property  and  my  liberty  to  carry  on  this 
trade.  The  nation  said  so  seven  years  ago — I  said  so  then,  and 
I  say  so  now.  It  is  not  for  the  honest  carrying  trade  of  America, 
but  for  this  mushroom,  this  fungus  of  war — for  a  trade  which, 
as  soon  as  the  nations  of  Europe  are  at  peace,  will  no  longer 
exist — it  is  for  this  that  the  spirit  of  avaricious  traffic  would 
plunge  us  into  war. 

I  am  forcibly  struck  on  this  occasion  by  the  recollection  of 
a  remark  made  by  one  of  the  ablest  (if  not  the  honestest)  min- 
isters that  England  ever  produced.  I  mean  Sir  Robert  Wal- 
pole,  who  said  that  the  country  gentlemen  (poor  meek  souls!) 
came  up  every  year  to  be  sheared — that  they  lay  mute  and  pa- 
tient whilst  their  fleeces  were  taking  off — but  that  if  he  touched 
a  single  bristle  of  the  commercial  interest  the  whole  stye  was  in 
an  uproar.  It  was  indeed  shearing  the  hog — ''great  cry  and 
little  wool/ ' 

I  am  averse  to  a  naval  war  with  any  nation  whatever.  I  was 
opposed  to  the  naval  war  of  the  last  administration,  and  I  am 
as  ready  to  oppose  a  naval  war  of  the  present  administration, 
should  they  meditate  such  a  measure.  What!  shall  this  great 
mammoth  of  the  American  forest  leave  his  native  element  and 
plunge  into  the  water  in  a  mad  contest  with  the  shark?  Let 
him  beware  that  his  proboscis  is  not  bitten  off  in  the  engage- 
ment. Let  him  stay  on  shore,  and  not  be  excited  by  the  mussels 
and  periwinkles  on  the  strand,  or  political  bears  in  a  boat,  to 
venture  on  the  perils  of  the  deep.  Gentlemen  say,  will  you  not 
protect  your  violated  rights?  and  I  say,  why  take  to  water, 
where  you  can  neither  fight  nor  swim  ?  Look  at  France — see  her 
vessels  stealing  from  port  to  port  on  her  own  coast — and  remem- 
ber that  she  is  the  first  military  power  of  the  earth,  and  as  a 
naval  people  second  only  to  England. 

Let  the  battle  of  Actium  be  once  fought  and  the  whole  line 
of  sea  coast  will  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  conqueror.    The  Atlan- 


118  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

tic,  deep  and  wide  as  it  is,  will  prove  just  as  good  a  barrier 
against  his  ambition,  if  directed  against  you,  as  the  Mediterra- 
nean to  the  power  of  the  Caesars.  Do  I  mean  (when  I  say  so)  to 
crouch  to  the  invader?  No!  I  will  meet  him  at  the  water's 
edge,  and  fight  every  inch  of  ground  from  thence  to  the  moun- 
tains— from  the  mountains  to  the  Mississippi. 

But,  sir,  I  have  yet  a  more  cogent  reason  against  going  to 
war,  for  the  honor  of  the  flag  in  the  narrow  seas,  or  any  other 
maritime  punctilio.  It  springs  from  my  attachment  to  the  Gov- 
ernment under  which  I  live.  I  declare,  in  the  face  of  day,  that 
this  Government  was  not  instituted  for  the  purposes  of  offensive 
war.  No!  It  was  framed  (to  use  its  own  language)  "for  the 
common  defence  and  the  general  welfare,,,  which  are  incon- 
sistent with  offensive  war.  I  call  that  offensive  war  which  goes 
out  of  our  jurisdiction  and  limits  for  the  attainment  or  protec- 
tion of  objects  not  within  those  limits  and  that  jurisdiction.  As 
in  1798  I  was  opposed  to  this  species  of  warfare,  because  I  be- 
lieved it  would  raze  the  Constitution  to  its  very  foundation — so, 
in  1806,  I  am  opposed  to  it,  and  on  the  same  grounds.  No 
sooner  do  you  put  the  Constitution  to  this  use — to  a  test  which 
it  is  by  no  means  calculated  to  endure — than  its  incompetency 
becomes  manifest,  apparent  to  all.  I  fear  if  you  go  into  a  for- 
eign war,  for  a  circuitous,  unfair  carrying  trade,  you  will  come 
out  without  your  Constitution.  Have  not  you  contractors 
enough  yet  in  this  House?  Or  do  you  want  to  be  overrun  and 
devoured  by  commissaries,  and  all  the  vermin  of  contract?  I 
fear,  sir,  that  what  are  called  "the  energy  men"  will  rise  up 
again — men  who  will  burn  the  parchment.  We  shall  be  told 
that  our  Government  is  too  free;  or,  as  they  would  say,  weak 
and  inefficient.  Much  virtue,  sir,  in  terms !  That  we  must  give 
the  President  power  to  call  forth  the  resources  of  the  nation. 
That  is,  to  filch  the  last  shilling  from  our  pockets — to  drain  the 
last  drop  of  blood  from  our  veins.  I  am  against  giving  this 
power  to  any  man,  be  he  who  he  may.  The  American  people 
must  either  withhold  this  power  or  resign  their  liberties.  There 
is  no  other  alternative.  Nothing  but  the  most  imperious  neces- 
sity will  justify  such  a  grant.  And  is  there  a  powerful  enemy 
at  our  doors  ?  You  may  begin  with  a  First  Consul.  From  that 
chrysalis  state  he  soon  becomes  an  emperor.  You  have  your 
choice.  It  depends  upon  your  election  whether  you  will  be  a 
free,  happy,  and  united  people  at  home,  or  the  light  of  your 
Executive  Majesty  shall  beam  across  the  Atlantic  in  one  general 
blaze  of  the  public  liberty. 

Much  more  am  I  indisposed  to  war,  when,  among  the  first 


THE    EMBARGO  119 

means  for  carrying  it  on,  I  see  gentlemen  propose  the  confisca- 
tion of  debts  due  by  Government  to  individuals.  Does  a  bona 
fide  creditor  know  who  holds  his  paper  ?  Dare  any  honest  man 
ask  himself  the  question?  'Tis  hard  to  say  whether  such  prin- 
ciples are  more  detestably  dishonest  than  they  are  weak  and 
foolish.  What,  sir,  will  you  go  about  with  proposals  for  open- 
ing a  loan  in  one  hand  and  a  sponge  for  the  national  debt  in  the 
other?  If,  on  a  late  occasion,  you  could  not  borrow  at  a  less 
rate  of  interest  than  eight  per  cent.,  when  the  Government 
avowed  that  they  would  pay  to  the  last  shilling  of  the  public 
ability,  at  what  price  do  you  expect  to  raise  money  with  an 
avowal  of  these  nefarious  opinions?  God  help  you  if  these  are 
your  ways  and  means  for  carrying  on  war ;  if  your  finances  are 
in  the  hands  of  such  a  chancellor  of  the  exchequer.  What  are 
you  going  to  war  for?  For  the  carrying  trade?  Already  you 
possess  seven-eighths  of  it.  What  is  the  object  in  dispute  ?  The 
fair,  honest  trade  that  exchanges  the  product  of  our  soil  for 
foreign  articles  for  home  consumption?  Not  at  all.  You  are 
called  upon  to  sacrifice  this  necessary  branch  of  your  naviga- 
tion, and  the  great  agricultural  interest — whose  handmaid  it  is — 
to  jeopardize  your  best  interests  for  a  circuitous  commerce,  for 
the  fraudulent  protection  of  belligerent  property  under  your 
neutral  flag.  Will  you  be  goaded  by  the  dreaming  calculations 
of  insatiate  avarice  to  stake  your  all  for  the  protection  of  this 
trade?  I  do  not  speak  of  the  probable  effects  of  war  on  the 
price  of  our  produce.  Severely  as  we  must  feel,  we  may  scuffle 
through  it.  I  speak  of  its  reaction  on  the  Constitution.  You 
may  go  to  war  for  this  excrescence  of  the  carrying  trade,  and 
make  peace  at  the  expense  of  the  Constitution.  Your  executive 
will  lord  it  over  you,  and  you  must  make  the  best  terms  with 
the  conqueror  that  you  can.  But  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania (Mr.  Gregg)  tells  you  that  he  is  for  acting  in  this,  as  in 
all  things,  uninfluenced  by  the  opinion  of  any  minister  what- 
ever— foreign  or,  I  presume,  domestic.  On  this  point  I  am  will- 
ing to  meet  the  gentleman — am  unwilling  to  be  dictated  to  by 
any  minister,  at  home  or  abroad.  Is  he  willing  to  act  on  the 
same  independent  footing  ?  I  have  before  protested,  and  I  again 
protest,  against  secret,  irresponsible,  overruling  influence.  The 
first  question  I  asked  when  I  saw  the  gentleman's  resolution 
was,  "Is  this  a  measure  of  the  cabinet V  Not  of  an  open  de- 
clared cabinet;  but  of  an  invisible,  inscrutable,  unconstitutional 
cabinet,  without  responsibility,  unknown  to  the  Constitution. 
I  speak  of  back-stairs'  influence — of  men  who  bring  messages 
to  this  House,  which,  although  they  do  not  appear  on  the  jour- 


120  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

nals,  govern  its  decisions.  Sir,  the  first  question  that  I  asked  on 
the  subject  of  British  relations  was,  What  is  the  opinion  of  the 
cabinet?  What  measures  will  they  recommend  to  Congress? — 
(well  knowing  that  whatever  measures  we  might  take  they  must 
execute  them,  and  therefore  that  we  should  have  their  opinion 
on  the  subject).  My  answer  was  (and  from  a  cabinet  minister, 
too),  "There  is  no  longer  any  cabinet." 

At  the  commencement  of  this  session  we  received  a  printed 
message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  breathing  a 
great  deal  of  national  honor  and  indignation  at  the  outrages 
we  had  endured,  particularly  from  Spain.  Some  of  the  State 
legislatures  sent  forward  resolutions  pledging  their  lives,  their 
fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor  in  support  of  any  measures 
you  might  take  in  vindication  of  your  injured  rights.  Well,  sir, 
what  have  you  done  I  You  have  had  resolutions  laid  upon  your 
table,  gone  to  some  expense  of  printing  and  stationery — mere 
pen,  ink,  and  paper,  that's  all.  Like  true  political  quacks  you 
deal  only  in  handbills  and  nostrums.  Sir,  I  blush  to  see  the 
record  of  our  proceedings;  they  resemble  nothing  but  the  ad- 
vertisements of  patent  medicines.  Here  you  have  "the  worm- 
destroying  lozenges, "  there  "Church's  cough  drops";  and,  to 
crown  the  whole,  ' '  Sloan 's  vegetable  specific, ' '  an  infallible  rem- 
edy for  all  nervous  disorders  and  vertigoes  of  brain-sick  poli- 
ticians; each  man  earnestly  adjuring  you  to  give  his  medicine 
only  a  fair  trial.  If,  indeed,  these  wonder-working  nostrums 
could  perform  but  one  half  of  what  they  promise  there  is  little 
danger  of  our  dying  a  political  death,  at  this  time  at  least.  But, 
sir,  in  politics  as  in  physics,  the  doctor  is  ofttimes  the  most  dan- 
gerous disease ;  and  this  I  take  to  be  our  case  at  present. 

But,  sir,  why  do  I  talk  of  Spain?  "There  are  no  longer 
Pyrenees !"  There  exists  no  such  nation,  no  such  being  as  a 
Spanish  King  or  minister.  It  is  a  mere  juggle,  played  off  for 
the  benefit  of  those  who  put  the  mechanism  into  motion.  You 
know,  sir,  that  you  have  no  differences  with  Spain;  that  she  is 
the  passive  tool  of  a  superior  power,  to  whom,  at  this  moment, 
you  are  crouching.  Are  your  differences,  indeed,  with  Spain? 
And  where  are  you  going  to  send  your  political  panacea,  reso- 
lutions and  handbills  excepted,  your  sole  arcanum  of  govern- 
ment, your  king  cure  all?  To  Madrid?  No — to  Paris.  You 
know,  at  least,  where  the  disease  lies,  and  there  you  apply  your 
remedy.  When  the  nation  anxiously  demands  the  result  of  your 
deliberations  you  hang  your  head  and  blush  to  tell.  You  are 
afraid  to  tell.  Your  mouth  is  hermetically  sealed.  Your  honor 
has  received  a  wound  which  must  not  take  air.    After  shrinking 


THE    EMBARGO  121, 

from  the  Spanish  jackal,  do  you  presume  to  bully  the  British 
lion?  But  here  the  secret  comes  out.  Britain  is  your  rival  in 
trade,  and,  governed  as  you  are  by  counting-house  politicians, 
you  would  sacrifice  the  paramount  interests  of  your  country  to 
wound  that  rival.  For  Spain  and  France  you  are  carriers,  and 
from  good  customers  every  indignity  is  to  be  endured.  Yes,  sir, 
and  when  a  question  of  great  national  magnitude  presents  itself 
to  you,  it  causes  those  who  now  prate  about  national  honor  and 
spirit  to  pocket  any  insult;  to  consider  it  as  a  mere  matter  of 
debit  and  credit ;  a  business  of  profit  and  loss,  and  nothing  else. 
I  ask  any  man  who  now  advocates  a  rupture  with  England 
to  assign  a  single  reason  for  his  opinion  that  would  not  have 
justified  a  French  war  in  1798?  If  injury  and  insult  abroad 
would  have  justified  it  we  had  them  in  abundance  then.  But 
what  did  the  Republicans  say  at  that  day?  That,  under  the 
cover  of  a  war  with  France,  the  executive  would  be  armed  with 
a  patronage  and  power  which  might  enable  it  to  master  our 
liberties.  They  deprecated  foreign  war  and  navies,  and  stand- 
ing armies,  and  loans,  and  taxes.  The  delirium  passed  away — 
the  good  sense  of  the  people  triumphed,  and  our  differences  were 
accommodated  without  a  war.  And  what  is  there  in  the  situa- 
tion of  England  that  invites  to  war  with  her?  It  is  true  she 
does  not  deal  so  largely  in  perfectibility,  but  she  supplies  you 
with  a  much  more  useful  commodity — with  coarse  woolens. 
With  less  profession,  indeed,  she  occupies  the  place  of  France 
in  1793.  She  is  the  sole  bulwark  of  the  human  race  against 
universal  dominion ;  no  thanks  to  her  for  it.  In  protecting  her 
own  existence  she  insures  theirs.  I  care  not  who  stands  in  this 
situation,  whether  England  or  Bonaparte.  I  practice  the  doc- 
trines now  that  I  professed  in  1798.  I  voted  against  all  such 
projects  under  the  administration  of  John  Adams,  and  I  will 
continue  to  do  so  under  that  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  Are  you  not 
contented  with  being  free  and  happy  at  home  ?  Or  will  you  sur- 
render these  blessings  that  your  merchants  may  tread  on  Turkish 
and  Persian  carpets,  and  burn  the  perfumes  of  the  East  in  their 
vaulted  rooms?  Gentlemen  say  it  is  but  an  annual  million  lost, 
and  even  if  it  were  five  times  that  amount,  what  is  it  compared 
with  your  neutral  rights  ?  Sir,  let  me  tell  them  a  hundred  mil- 
lions will  be  but  a  drop  in  the  bucket  if  once  they  launch  with- 
out rudder  or  compass  into  this  ocean  of  foreign  warfare.  Whom 
do  they  want  to  attack?  England.  They  hope  it  is  a  popular 
thing,  and  talk  about  Bunker  Hill,  and  the  gallant  feats  of  our 
Revolution.  But  is  Bunker  Hill  to  be  the  theater  of  war?  No, 
sir,  you  have  selected  the  ocean,  and  the  object  of  attack  is  that 


122  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

very  navy  which  prevented  the  combined  fleets  of  France  and 
Spain  from  levying  contribution  upon  you  in  your  own  seas; 
that  very  navy  which,  in  the  famous  war  of  1798,  stood  between 
you  and  danger.  Quern  Deus  vult  perdere  prius  dementat.1 
Are  you  mad  enough  to  take  up  the  cudgels  that  have  been 
struck  from  the  nerveless  hands  of  the  three  great  maritime 
powers  of  Europe?  Shall  the  planter  mortgage  his  little  crop, 
and  jeopardize  the  Constitution  in  support  of  commercial  mo- 
nopoly, in  the  vain  hope  of  satisfying  the  insatiable  greediness 
of  trade  f  Administer  the  Constitution  upon  its  own  principles ; 
for  the  general  welfare,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  any  particular 
class  of  men. 

A  great  deal  is  said  about  the  laws  of  nations.  What  is  na- 
tional law  but  national  power  guided  by  national  interest  ?  You 
yourselves  acknowledge  and  practice  upon  this  principle  where 
you  can,  or  where  you  dare — with  the  Indian  tribes  for  instance. 
I  might  give  another  and  more  forcible  illustration.  Will  the 
learned  lumber  of  your  libraries  add  a  ship  to  your  fleet,  or  a 
shilling  to  your  revenue  ?  Will  it  pay  or  maintain  a  single  sol- 
dier? And  will  you  preach  and  prate  of  violations  of  your 
neutral  rights,  when  you  tamely  and  meanly  submit  to  the  viola- 
tion of  your  territory  [i.  e.,  by  Spain].  Will  you  collar  the 
stealer  of  your  sheep,  and  let  him  escape  that  has  invaded  the 
repose  of  your  fireside — has  insulted  your  wife  and  children 
under  your  own  roof?  This  is  the  heroism  of  truck  and  traffic 
— the  public  spirit  of  sordid  avarice.  Great  Britain  violates 
your  flag  on  the  high  seas.  What  is  her  situation?  Contend- 
ing, not  for  the  dismantling  of  Dunkirk,  for  Quebec,  or  Pondi- 
cherry,  but  for  London  and  Westminster — for  life;  her  enemy 
violating  at  will  the  territories  of  other  nations,  acquiring 
thereby  a  colossal  power  that  threatens  the  very  existence  of  her 
rival.  But  she  has  one  vulnerable  point  to  the  arms  of  her  ad- 
versary, which  she  covers  with  the  ensigns  of  neutrality;  she 
draws  the  neutral  flag  over  the  heel  of  Achilles.  And  can  you 
ask  that  adversary  to  respect  it  at  the  expense  of  her  existence  ? 
and  in  favor  of  whom  ?  An  enemy  that  respects  no  neutral  ter- 
ritory of  Europe,  and  not  even  your  own.  I  repeat  that  the 
insults  of  Spain  toward  this  nation  have  been  at  the  instigation 
of  France;  that  there  is  no  longer  any  Spain.  Well,  sir,  be- 
cause the  French  Government  does  not  put  this  in  the  Moniteur 
you  choose  to  shut  your  eyes  to  it.  None  so  blind  as  those  who 
will  not  see.  You  shut  your  own  eyes,  and  to  blind  those  of 
other  people  you  go  into  conclave,  and  slink  out  again  and  say, 

*"Whom  the  gods  would  destroy  they  first  make  mad." 


THE    EMBARGO  123 

"a  great  affair  of  State!" — C'est  une  grande  affaire  d'Etat! 
It  seems  that  your  sensibility  is  entirely  confined  to  the  extremi- 
ties. You  may  be  pulled  by  the  nose  and  ears,  and  never  feel 
it,  but  let  your  strong  box  be  attacked  and  you  are  all  nerve — 
"Let  us  go  to  war!"  Sir,  if  they  called  upon  me  only  for  my 
little  peculium  1  to  carry  it  on,  perhaps  I  might  give  it ;  but  my 
rights  and  liberties  are  involved  in  the  grant,  and  I  will  never 
surrender  them  while  I  have  life.  The  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts (Mr.  Crowninshield)  is  for  sponging  the  debt.  I  can 
never  consent  to  it;  I  will  never  bring  the  ways  and  means  of 
fraudulent  bankruptcy  into  your  committee  of  supply.  Con- 
fiscation and  swindling  shall  never  be  found  among  my  esti- 
mates to  meet  the  current  expenditure  of  peace  or  war.  No,  sir, 
I  have  said  with  the  doors  closed,  and  I  say  so  when  the  doors 
are  open,  "pay  the  public  debt";  get  rid  of  that  dead  weight 
upon  your  Government — that  cramp  upon  all  your  measures — 
and  then  you  may  put  the  world  at  defiance.  So  long  as  it 
hangs  upon  you  you  must  have  revenue,  and  to  have  revenue 
you  must  have  commerce — commerce,  peace.  And  shall  these 
nefarious  schemes  be  advised  for  lightening  the  public  burdens ; 
will  you  resort  to  these  low  and  pitiful  shifts ;  dare  even  to  men- 
tion these  dishonest  artifices  to  eke  out  your  expenses,  when 
the  public  treasure  is  lavished  on  Turks  and  infidels,  on  singing 
boys  and  dancing  girls,  to  furnish  the  means  of  bestiality  to  an 
African  barbarian  ? 

Gentlemen  say  that  Great  Britain  will  count  upon  our  di- 
visions. How  ?  What  does  she  know  of  them  ?  Can  they  ever 
expect  greater  unanimity  than  prevailed  at  the  last  presidential 
election?  No,  sir,  it  is  the  gentleman's  own  conscience  that 
squeaks.  But  if  she  cannot  calculate  upon  your  divisions,  at 
least  she  may  reckon  upon  your  pusillanimity.  She  may  well 
despise  the  resentment  that  cannot  be  excited  to  honorable 
battle  on  its  own  ground ;  the  mere  effusion  of  mercantile  cupid- 
ity. Gentlemen  talk  of  repealing  the  British  treaty.  And  what 
is  all  this  for?  A  point  which  Great  Britain  will  not  abandon 
to  Russia,  you  expect  her  to  yield  to  you — Russia !  indisputably 
the  second  power  of  continental  Europe ;  with  not  less  than  half 
a  million  of  hardy  troops ;  with  sixty  sail-of-the-line,  thirty  mil- 
lions of  subjects,  and  a  territory  more  extensive  even  than  our 
own — Russia,  sir,  the  storehouse  of  the  British  navy,  whom  it  is 
not  more  the  policy  and  the  interest  than  the  sentiment  of  that 
government  to  soothe  and  to  conciliate — her  sole  hope  of  a  di- 
version on  the  continent,  and  her  only  efficient  ally.    What  this 

1  *  ■  Private  property — savings. ' ' 


124  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

formidable  power  cannot  obtain  with  fleets  and  armies  you  will 
command  by  writ — with  pothooks  and  hangers.  I  am  for  no 
such  policy.  True  honor  is  always  the  same.  Before  you  enter 
into  a  contest,  public  or  private,  be  sure  you  have  fortitude 
enough  to  go  through  with  it.  If  you  mean  war,  say  so,  and 
prepare  for  it:  Look  on  the  other  side;  behold  the  respect  in 
which  France  holds  neutral  rights  on  land.  And  if  you  make 
the  French  Emperor  monarch  of  the  ocean  you  may  bid  adieu 
to  it  forever.  You  may  take  your  leave,  sir,  of  navigation — 
even  of  the  Mississippi.  "What  is  the  situation  of  New  Orleans 
if  attacked  to-morrow  ?  Filled  with  a  discontented  and  repining 
people,  whose  language,  manners,  and  religion  all  incline  them 
to  the  invader — a  dissatisfied  people,  who  despise  the  miserable 
governor  you  have  set  over  them — whose  honest  prejudices  and 
basest  passions  alike  take  part  against  you.  You  have  official 
information  that  the  town  and  its  dependencies  are  utterly  de- 
fenceless and  untenable.  You  have  held  that  post,  you  now  hold 
it,  by  the  tenure  of  the  naval  predominance  of  England,  and 
yet  you  are  for  a  British  naval  war. 

There  are  now  but  two  great  commercial  nations — Great 
Britain  is  one,  and  the  United  States  the  other.  When  you  con- 
sider the  many  points  of  contact  between  our  interests  you  may 
be  surprised  that  there  has  been  so  little  collision.  Sir,  to  the 
other  belligerent  nations  of  Europe  your  navigation  is  a  con- 
venience, I  might  say,  a  necessary.  If  you  do  not  carry  for 
them  they  must  starve,  at  least  for  the  luxuries  of  life,  which 
custom  has  rendered  almost  indispensable;  and  if  you  cannot 
act  with  some  degree  of  spirit  toward  those  who  are  dependent 
upon  you  as  carriers,  do  you  reckon  to  browbeat  a  jealous  rival, 
who,  the  moment  she  lets  slip  the  dogs  of  war,  sweeps  you  at  a 
blow  from  the  ocean?  And  cui  bono?  for  whose  benefit?  The 
planter?  Nothing  like  it.  The  fair,  honest,  real  American 
merchant  ?  No,  sir,  for  renegadoes ;  to-day  American,  to-morrow 
Danes.  Go  to  war  when  you  will,  the  property,  now  covered 
by  the  American,  will  then  pass  under  the  Danish,  or  some  other 
neutral  flag.  Gentlemen  say  that  one  English  ship  is  worth 
three  of  ours;  we  shall  therefore  have  the  advantage  in  priva- 
teering. Did  they  ever  know  a  nation  to  get  rich  by  privateer- 
ing? This  is  stuff,  sir,  for  the  nursery.  Remember  that  your 
products  are  bulky,  as  has  been  stated ;  that  they  require  a  vast 
tonnage  to  transport  them  abroad,  and  that  but  two  nations 
possess  that  tonnage.  Take  these  carriers  out  of  the  market. 
What  is  the  result?  The  manufactures  of  England,  which  (to 
use  a  finishing  touch  of  the  gentlemen's  rhetoric)  have  received 


THE    EMBARGO  125 

the  finishing  stroke  of  art,  lie  in  a  small  comparative  compass. 
The  neutral  trade  can  carry  them.  Your  produce  rots  in  the 
warehouse.  You  go  to  Eustatia  or  St.  Thomas,  and  get  a  striped 
blanket  for  a  joe,1  if  you  can  raise  one.  Double  freight,  charges, 
and  commission.  Who  receives  the  profit?  The  carrier.  Who 
pays  it?  The  consumer.  All  your  produce  that  finds  its  way 
to  England  must  bear  the  same  accumulated  charges — with  this 
difference,  that  there  the  burden  falls  on  the  home  price.  I 
appeal  to  the  experience  of  the  late  war,  which  has  been  so 
often  cited.  What  then  was  the  price  of  produce,  and  of  broad- 
cloth? 

But  you  are  told  England  will  not  make  war;  that  she  has 
her  hands  full.  Holland  calculated  in  the  same  way  in  1781. 
How  did  it  turn  out  ?  You  stand  now  in  the  place  of  Holland, 
then  without  her  navy,  and  unaided  by  the  preponderating 
fleets  of  France  and  Spain,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Baltic  powers. 
Do  you  want  to  take  up  the  cudgels  where  these  great  maritime 
states  have  been  forced  to  drop  them  ?  to  meet  Great  Britain  on 
the  ocean,  and  drive  her  off  its  face?  If  you  are  so  far  gone  as 
this,  every  capital  measure  of  your  policy  has  hitherto  been 
wrong.  You  should  have  nurtured  the  old,  and  devised  new, 
systems  of  taxation,  and  have  cherished  your  navy.  Begin  this 
business  when  you  may,  land-taxes,  stamp-acts,  window-taxes, 
hearth-money,  excise,  in  all  its  modifications  of  vexation  and 
oppression,  must  precede  or  follow  after.  But,  sir,  as  French 
is  the  fashion  of  the  day,  I  may  be  asked  for  my  pro  jet.  I  can 
readily  tell  gentlemen  what  I  will  not  do.  I  will  not  propitiate 
any  foreign  nation  with  money.  I  will  not  launch  into  a  naval 
war  with  Great  Britain,  although  I  am  ready  to  meet  her  at  the 
Cowpens  or  on  Bunker's  Hill — and  for  this  plain  reason  we  are 
a  great  land  animal,  and  our  business  is  on  shore.  I  go  further : 
I  would  (  if  anything)  have  laid  an  embargo.  This  would  have 
got  our  own  property  home,  and  our  adversary's  into  our  power. 
If  there  is  any  wisdom  left  among  us  the  first  step  toward  hos- 
tility will  always  be  an  embargo.  In  six  months  all  your  mer- 
cantile megrims  would  vanish.  As  to  us,  although  it  would  cut 
deep,  we  can  stand  it.  Without  such  a  precaution,  go  to  war 
when  you  will,  you  go  to  the  wall.  As  to  debts,  strike  the  bal- 
ance to-morrow,  and  England  is,  I  believe,  in  our  debt. 

I  ask  your  attention  to  the  character  of  the  inhabitants  of 

that  Southern  country,  on  whom  gentlemen  rely  for  support  of 

their  measure.    Who  and  what  are  they  ?    A  simple,  agricultural 

people,  accustomed  to  travel  in  peace  to  market  with  the  produce 

*A  Portuguese  coin. 


126  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

of  their  labor.  Who  takes  it  from  us  ?  Another  people,  devoted 
to  manufactures — our  sole  source  of  supply.  I  have  seen  some 
stuff  in  the  newspapers  about  manufactures  in  Saxony.  But 
what  became  of  their  Dresden  china?  Why  the  Prussian  bayo- 
nets have  broken  all  the  pots,  and  you  are  content  with  Wor- 
cestershire or  Staffordshire  ware.  There  are  some  other  fine 
manufactures  on  the  continent,  but  no  supply,  except  perhaps 
of  linens,  the  article  we  can  best  dispense  with.  A  few  indi- 
viduals, sir,  may  have  a  coat  of  Louvier's  cloth,  or  a  service  of 
Sevres  china;  but  there  is  too  little,  and  that  little  too  dear,  to 
furnish  the  nation.  You  must  depend  on  the  fur  trade  in  ear- 
nest, and  wear  buffalo  hides  and  bear  skins. 

But,  sir,  it  seems  that  we,  who  are  opposed  to  this  resolution, 
are  men  of  no  nerve,  who  trembled  in  the  days  of  the  British 
treaty — cowards  (I  presume)  in  the  reign  of  terror?  Is  this 
true  ?  Hunt  up  the  journals ;  and  let  our  actions  tell.  We  pur- 
sue our  old  unshaken  course.  We  care  not  for  the  nations  of 
Europe,  but  make  foreign  relations  bend  to  our  political  prin- 
ciples and  subserve  our  country's  interest.  We  have  no  wish 
to  see  another  Actium,  or  Pharsalia,  or  the  lieutenants  of  a 
modern  Alexander  playing  at  piquet,  or  all-fours,  for  the  em- 
pire of  the  world.  It  is  poor  comfort  to  us  to  be  told  that 
France  has  too  decided  a  taste  for  luxurious  things  to  meddle 
with  us;  that  Egypt  is  her  object,  or  the  coast  of  Barbary,  and, 
at  the  worst,  we  shall  be  the  last  devoured.  We  are  enamored 
with  neither  nation ;  we  would  play  their  own  game  upon  them, 
use  them  for  our  interest  and  convenience.  But  with  all  my 
abhorrence  of  the  British  Government  I  should  not  hesitate  be- 
tween Westminster  Hall  and  a  Middlesex  jury,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  wood  of  Vincennes  and  a  file  of  grenadiers,  on  the 
other.  That  jury-trial,  which  walked  with  Home  Tooke  and 
Hardy  through  the  flames  of  ministerial  persecution,  is,  I  con- 
fess, more  to  my  taste  than  the  trial  of  the  Duke  d'Enghein. 

I  offer  as  apology  for  these  undigested,  desultory  remarks 
my  never  having  seen  the  treasury  documents.  Until  I  came 
into  the  House  this  morning  I  had  been  stretched  on  a  sick  bed. 
But  when  I  behold  the  affairs  of  this  nation,  instead  of  being 
where  I  hoped,  and  the  people  believed,  they  were,  in  the  hands 
of  responsible  men,  committed  to  Tom,  Dick,  and  Harry,  to  the 
refuse  of  the  retail  trade  of  politics,  I  do  feel,  I  cannot  help 
feeling,  the  most  deep  and  serious  concern.  If  the  executive 
Government  would  step  forward  and  say,  "such  is  oar  plan, 
such  is  our  opinion,  and  such  are  our  reasons  in  support  of  it, ' ' 
I  would  meet  it  fairly,  would  openly  oppose,  or  pledge  myself 


THE    EMBARGO  127 

to  support  it.  But,  without  compass  or  polar  star,  I  will  not 
launch  into  an  ocean  of  unexplored  measures,  which  stand  con- 
demned by  all  the  information  to  which  I  have  access.  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares  it  to  be  the  province 
and  the  duty  of  the  President  "to  give  to  Congress,  from  time 
to  time,  information  of  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  recommend 
to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he  shall  judge  expedient 
and  necessary. ' '  Has  he  done  it  ?  I  know,  sir,  that  we  may  say, 
and  do  say,  that  we  are  independent  (would  it  were  true)  ;  as 
free  to  give  a  direction  to  the  executive  as  to  receive  it  from 
him.  But  do  what  you  will,  foreign  relations,  every  measure 
short  of  war,  and  even  the  course  of  hostilities,  depend  upon 
him.  He  stands  at  the  helm,  and  must  guide  the  vessel  of 
state.  You  give  him  money  to  buy  Florida,  and  he  purchases 
Louisiana.  You  may  furnish  means;  the  application  of  those 
means  rests  with  him.  Let  not  the  master  and  mate  go  below 
when  the  ship  is  in  distress,  and  throw  the  responsibility  upon 
the  cook  and  the  cabin-boy.  I  blush  with  indignation  at  the 
misrepresentations  which  have  gone  forth  in  the  public  prints 
of  our  proceedings,  public  and  private.  Are  the  people  of  the 
United  States  the  real  sovereigns  of  the  country,  unworthy  of 
knowing  what,  there  is  too  much  reason  to  believe,  has  been 
communicated  to  the  privileged  spies  of  foreign  governments? 
Let  the  nation  know  what  they  have  to  depend  upon.  Be  true  to 
them,  and  (trust  me)  they  will  prove  true  to  themselves  and  to 
you.  The  people  are  honest — now  at  home  at  their  ploughs,  not 
dreaming  of  what  you  are  about.  But  the  spirit  of  inquiry, 
that  has  too  long  slept,  will  be,  must  be,  awakened.  Let  them 
begin  to  think  why  things  have  been  done — not  to  accept  them 
as  proper  because  they  have  been  done — and  all  will  be  right. 

Upon  the  passage  of  the  Non-Importation  Act,  Wil- 
liam Pinkney  was  appointed  a  special  envoy  to  assist 
James  Monroe,  minister  to  Great  Britain,  in  securing  a 
new  treaty.  On  December  19,  1806,  the  President  caused 
the  Non-Importation  Act  to  be  suspended,  having  ar- 
rived at  the  conclusion  that  he  might  thus  hasten  the 
negotiations.  If  this  had  any  effect,  however,  it  was 
purely  psychic,  since  a  treaty  was  agreed  to  by  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  two  countries  on  December  31,  before 
news  reached  England  of  the  suspension  of  the  act. 

This  convention  recognized  the  American  contention 
that  indirect  trade  should  be  permitted  between  a  bel- 


128  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

ligerent  and  its  colonies  by  a  landing  made  by  the 
carrier  in  a  neutral  country,  and  that  provisions  should 
be  taken  from  the  contraband  list.  Monroe  and  Pinkney 
were  compelled  to  yield  the  right  of  search  and  impress- 
ment, on  the  understanding,  however,  that  it  would  be 
exercised  only  under  extraordinary  circumstances. 

Owing  to  this  concession  the  President  declined  to 
submit  the  treaty  to  the  Senate  for  confirmation,  and 
ordered  the  American  envoys  to  continue  their  negotia- 
tions. 

The  Orders  in  Council 

In  the  meantime  events  had  occurred  in  the  war  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  France  which  greatly  aggra- 
vated the  American  grievances. 

Great  Britain  had  issued,  on  January  7,  1807,  an 
11  Order  in  Council/ '  by  which  all  neutral  vessels  were 
prohibited  from  trading  between  the  ports  of  France 
and  her  allies.  Then,  when  she  further  declared  a 
blockade  of  all  ports  from  which  her  flag  was  excluded, 
Napoleon  retorted  with  his  " Milan  Decrees"  of  Decem- 
ber 7,  1807,  and  January  11,  1808,  which  proclaimed  that 
any  vessel  which  was  in  any  way  connected  with  British 
trade,  or  which  should  submit  to  search  by  a  British 
commander,  became  thereby  "denationalized"  and  was 
a  good  prize  for  the  vessels  of  France  or  of  the  countries 
which  were  her  allies. 

But  even  more  than  the  injury  to  their  commerce 
did  the  American  people  resent  an  outrage  against  the 
persons  of  their  citizens  and  against  their  flag,  which 
was  committed  on  June  22,  1807,  by  the  British  frigate 
Leopard  in  taking  four  sailors  by  force  from  the  Amer- 
ican frigate  Chesapeake. 

Prompted  by  his  own  sentiments  as  well  as  by  the 
voice  of  the  people,  the  President  assembled  Congress 
in  October,  1807,  in  advance  of  its  regular  time  of  assem- 
bly, and  laid  before  them  the  actions  of  the  British 
which  demanded  redress. 

As  he  stated  in  his  message,  he  had,  without  waiting 
for  Congress,  taken  instant  action  for  redress. 


THE    EMBARGO  129 

Message  to  Congress 

President  Jefferson,  October  27,  1807 

Circumstances,  fellow-citizens,  which  seriously  threatened 
the  peace  of  our  country,  have  made  it  a  duty  to  convene  you  at 
an  earlier  period  than  usual.  The  love  of  peace,  so  much  cher- 
ished in  the  bosoms  of  our  citizens,  which  has  so  long  guided 
the  proceedings  of  their  public  councils,  and  induced  forbear- 
ance under  so  many  wrongs,  may  not  insure  our  continuance 
in  the  quiet  pursuits  of  industry.  The  many  injuries  and  depre- 
dations committed  on  our  commerce  and  navigation  upon  the 
high  seas  for  years  past,  the  successive  innovations  on  those 
principles  of  public  law  which  have  been  established  by  the 
reason  and  usage  of  nations  as  the  rule  of  their  intercourse,  and 
the  umpire  and  security  of  their  rights  and  peace,  and  all  the 
circumstances  which  induced  the  extraordinary  mission  to  Lon- 
don, are  already  known  to  you. 

The  President  here  commented  upon  the  several  con- 
cessions which  the  embassy  had  been  authorized  to 
grant  and  the  others  which  the  treaty  called  for,  which 
his  own  sense  of  honor  and  ideas  of  justice  could  not 
allow  him  to  consider.  He  spoke  of  the  consequent  f  ruit- 
lessness  of  the  mission,  and  continued: 

On  the  22d  day  of  June  last,  by  a  formal  order  from  a  Brit- 
ish admiral,  the  frigate  Chesapeake,  leaving  her  port  for  a  dis- 
tant service,  was  attacked  by  one  of  those  vessels  which  had 
been  lying  in  our  harbors  under  the  indulgences  of  hospitality, 
was  disabled  from  proceeding,  had  several  of  her  crew  killed, 
and  four  taken  away.  On  this  outrage  no  commentaries  are 
necessary.  Its  character  has  been  pronounced  by  the  indignant 
voice  of  our  citizens  with  an  emphasis  and  unanimity  never  ex- 
ceeded. I  immediately,  by  proclamation,  interdicted  our  har- 
bors and  waters  to  all  British  armed  vessels.  An  armed  vessel 
of  the  United  States  was  dispatched  with  instructions  to  our 
ministers  at  London  to  call  on  that  government  for  the  satisfac- 
tion and  security  required  by  the  outrage. 

The  aggression  thus  begun  has  been  continued  on  the  part  of 
the  British  commanders,  by  remaining  within  our  waters  in  de- 
fiance of  the  authority  of  the  country,  by  habitual  violations  of 
its  jurisdiction,  and,  at  length,  by  putting  to  death  one  of  the 


130  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

persons  whom  they  had  forcibly  taken  from  on  board  the  Chesa- 
peake. 

To  former  violations  of  maritime  rights  another  is  now  added 
of  very  extensive  effect.  The  government  of  that  nation  has 
issued  an  order  interdicting  all  trade  by  neutrals  between  ports 
not  in  amity  with  them.  And  being  now  at  war  with  nearly 
every  nation  on  the  Atlantic  and  Mediterranean  seas,  our  vessels 
are  required  to  sacrifice  their  cargoes  at  the  first  port  they  touch, 
or  to  return  home  without  the  benefit  of  going  to  any  other 
market.  Under  this  new  law  of  the  ocean  our  trade  on  the 
Mediterranean  has  been  swept  away  by  seizures  and  condem- 
nations, and  that  in  other  seas  is  threatened  with  the  same  fate. 

On  December  18,  1807,  the  President,  having  in  the 
meantime  learned  of  the  second  " Order  in  Council"  of 
the  British  Government,  sent  the  following  special  mes- 
sage to  Congress: 

The  communications  now  made,  showing  the  great  and  in- 
creasing dangers  with  which  our  vessels,  our  seamen,  and  mer- 
chandise are  threatened  on  the  high  seas  and  elsewhere,  from 
the  belligerent  powers  of  Europe,  and  it  being  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  keep  in  safety  these  essential  resources,  I  deem  it 
my  duty  to  recommend  the  subject  to  the  consideration  of  Con- 
gress, who  will  doubtless  perceive  all  the  advantages  which  may 
be  expected  from  an  inhibition  of  the  departure  of  our  vessels 
from  the  ports  of  the  United  States. 

Agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  President, 
on  December  21,  Congress,  in  a  secret  session  which 
lasted  until  midnight,  passed  an  embargo  act  temporarily 
prohibiting  all  commerce  between  the  United  States  and 
foreign  ports. 

For  a  time  after  the  passage  of  the  act  the  patriot- 
ism of  the  nation  was  staunch  enough  to  approve  it,  in 
the  hope  that  the  loss  of  the  American  trade  would  bring 
Great  Britain  and  France  to  terms  with  this  country. 
Many  State  legislatures  passed  approving  resolutions, 
and  the  suffering  shipowners  and  merchants  for  a  while 
bore  their  losses  in  grim  silence.  In  three  or  four 
months,  however,  opposition  to  the  act  began  to  assert 
itself  both  in  and  out  of  Congress. 

Nor  could  the  opponents  be  accused  of  lack  of  patri- 


THE    EMBARGO  131 

otism  in  view  of  the  fact  that  no  indication  had  yet 
appeared  that  the  purpose  of  the  embargo  would  be 
accomplished.  Indeed,  Great  Britain  professed  to  be 
pleased  with  its  effects,  chief  of  which  was  the  surren- 
der of  the  carrying  trade  to  her  own  marine  and  the 
upbuilding  of  her  American  colonies.  Napoleon,  too, 
praised  it  highly,  and  in  characteristic  fashion  en- 
forced his  professions  by  another  proclamation,  the 
"Bayonne  Decree' '  of  April  17,  1808,  which  righteously 
supported  the  embargo  by  ordering  the  seizure  and  sale 
of  all  American  vessels  which  should  enter  the  ports  of 
France  or  its  allies  in  violation  of  the  act. 

The  first  strong  attack  in  Congress  upon  the  em- 
bargo came  from  a  representative  of  the  President's 
own  State.  John  Randolph,  who  had  advocated  an  em- 
bargo in  substitution  for  the  Non-Importation  Act,  now 
permitted  his  hostility  to  the  Administration  to  get  the 
better  of  his  consistency  and,  on  April  7,  1808,  in  oppos- 
ing a  bill  to  increase  the  army  in  view  of  the  prospect 
of  a  war  with  Great  Britain,  included  the  embargo 
among  the  objects  of  his  reprobation.  As  for  some  rea- 
son, probably  the  great  number  and  length  as  well  as 
incoherence  of  his  speeches,  all  of  his  remarks  were  not 
reported  in  the  succeeding  debate,  his  attack  on  the  em- 
bargo in  the  army  debate  is  presented  in  connection 
with  the  embargo  debate. 

On  April  8,  George  W.  Campbell,  of  Tennessee,  in 
the  interest  of  the  Administration  moved  that  the  Presi- 
dent have  the  right  to  suspend  the  act  in  view  of  cer- 
tain contingencies  (i.  e.,  the  settlement  of  difficulties 
with  Great  Britain  and  France)  which  might  arise  dur- 
ing the  coming  recess  of  Congress. 

During  the  debates  the  speakers  who  chose  the  op- 
portunity to  denounce  the  embargo  as  wrong  in  prin- 
ciple and  ineffective  in  practice  were  John  Randolph 
[Va.],  Josiah  Masters  [N.  Y.],  and  Philip  B.  Key  [Md.] ; 
and  those  who  defended  it  were  Richard  M.  Johnson 
[Ky.],  John  Love  [Va.],  James  Fick  [VI],  and  Mr. 
Campbell. 

The  bill  giving  the  President  the  desired  power  was 
passed  on  April  19,  1808,  by  a  vote  of  54  to  33. 


132  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Suspension  of  the  Embargo 
House  op  Representatives,  April  8-19   1808 

Mr.  Randolph. — The  non-importation  law  might  be  called  the 
edge  of  the  wedge,  the  embargo  the  center,  and  the  standing 
army  the  butt  [of  the  President's  policy  for  the  aggrandizement 
of  his  power] ,  and  it  is  all  about  to  be  driven  to  the  hilt. 

We  quarreled  about  impressed  American  seamen,  and  com- 
menced a  system  which  produced  consequences  the  remedy  for 
which  is  an  embargo;  and  we  give  up  all  our  seamen,  for  they 
are  not  to  be  embargoed;  they  will  slip  out.  Great  Britain  has 
now  not  only  all  her  own  seamen,  but  a  great  many  of  ours.  I 
am  not  surprised  to  learn  that  in  England  the  embargo  is  a 
most  popular  measure ;  that  they  are  glad  to  see  the  patriotism 
with  which  we  bear  it,  and  hope  it  will  not  fail  us. 

The  British  "West  Indies,  so  long  verging  to  ruin,  are  at  last 
relieved.  Year  after  year  they  have  petitioned  Parliament,  com- 
plaining that  they  are  undersold  by  the  enemies '  colonies,  whose 
produce  is  carried  in  neutral  bottoms  (chiefly  American)  free  of 
war  risks  and  charges.  We  have  done  more  for  them  than  their 
own  government  could  do.  We  have  given  them  the  monopoly 
of  the  supply  of  Europe;  and  to  the  mother  country  the  mo- 
nopoly of  the  carrying  trade  also. 

I  therefore  am  not  one  of  those  who  approve  the  embargo; 
and  so  far  permit  me  to  differ  with  my  friend  from  South  Caro- 
lina (Mr.  D.  R.  Williams)  in  considering  the  embargo  a  half- 
way measure.  Not  so.  It  is  up  to  the  hilt ;  commerce  and  agri- 
culture are  lingering  and  must  die  under  its  operation.  A  half- 
way measure  indeed !  It  gives  up  to  Great  Britain  all  the  sea- 
men and  all  the  commerce;  their  feet  are  not  now  upon  your 
decks,  for  your  vessels  are  all  riding  safely  moored  along  your 
slips  and  wharves ;  and  this  measure  absolutely  gives  agriculture 
a  blow  which  she  cannot  recover  till  the  embargo  is  removed. 

Mr.  Bandolph  then  entered  into  a  constitutional  argu- 
ment against  the  measure,  making  a  distinction  between 
a  permanent  and  a  temporary  embargo,  and  saying  that 
because  it  affected  exportation  the  measure  was  in  the 
same  category  as  export  duties,  which  were  prohibited  by 
the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Johnson  answered  the  first  of  these  arguments. 

If  we  have  power  to  lay  an  embargo  for  one  day,  have  we 
not  the  power  to  renew  it  at  the  end  of  that  day !    If  for  sixty 


THE    EMBARGO  133 

days,  have  we  not  the  power  to  lay  it  again?  Would  it  not 
amount  to  the  same  thing?  If  we  pass  a  law  to  expire  within  a 
limited  term,  we  may  renew  it  at  the  end  of  that  term ;  and  there 
is  no  difference  between  a  power  to  do  this  and  a  power  to  pass 
laws  without  specified  limit. 

Mr.  Randolph  said  he  would  just  remind  his  friend 
from  Kentucky  that  he  had  never  conceded  the  right  of 
Congress  to  lay  even  a  temporary  embargo. 

Mr.  Johnson  resumed: 

The  gentleman  has  told  us  that  the  embargo  is  well  received 
in  Great  Britain.  Do  we  not  know  the  warm  discussions  which 
have  taken  place  in  the  British  Parliament?  Have  we  not  seen 
the  petitions  of  the  people  of  England,  and  from  our  minister 
himself  do  we  not  know  that  if  we  are  plunged  into  a  war  the 
whole  world  will  say  that  the  cause  of  America  is  just?  If  we 
are  upon  wrong  ground  let  us  retract;  if  not,  let  us  have  bare 
justice,  and  I  for  one  will  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Love  answered  the  second  of  Mr.  Randolph's 
constitutional  arguments : 

But  to  lay  an  embargo  is  unconstitutional,  because  Congress 
cannot  lay  an  export  duty !  And  it  is  argued  by  the  same  gen- 
tleman that  the  lesser  power  being  thus  provided  against  the 
exercise  of  the  greater  must  of  course  be  included  in  the  pro- 
hibition; the  minor  forming  an  objection,  the  major  is,  a  forti- 
ori, inadmissible.  How  easily,  sir,  is  this  argument  of  inference 
retorted  on  the  gentleman ;  for,  according  to  a  familiar  and  cer- 
tainly plain  course  of  reasoning,  it  would  seem  that,  if  the  sub- 
jects are  the  same  as  is  said,  when  the  framers  of  our  Constitu- 
tion made  an  exception  of  the  lesser  power,  if  they  had  intended 
also  to  except  the  greater,  they  would  not  have  forgotten  it. 

The  reasons  which  influenced  the  framers  of  that  instrument 
to  provide  against  the  power  of  laying  an  export  duty  were 
obvious;  the  provision  was  adopted  in  that  spirit  of  mutual  ac- 
commodation which  was  so  necessary  to  the  harmony  of  the 
whole.  It  would  be  difficult,  it  was  easily  foreseen,  to  devise  an 
export  duty  which  would  not  bear  harder  on  some  of  the  States 
than  others;  it  was  better  therefore  not  to  resort  at  all  to  a 
mode  of  taxation  which  would  afford  so  fruitless  a  source  of 
contention.     The  policy,  too,  of  taxing  exports  was  perhaps 


134  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

radically  inadmissible;  yet  I  cannot,  for  my  life,  discern  how 
an  export  duty  has  been  drawn  into  analogy  with  an  embargo. 

That  the  embargo  was  a  curse,  sir,  and  continues  to  be  a 
most  calamitous  one  to  us  all,  I  have  heard  no  one  deny;  but 
until  now  I  have  not  heard  the  assertion  advanced  that  our 
Government,  by  its  conduct,  was  the  author  of  that  cause.  Yes, 
sir,  many  evils  which  the  injustice  of  other  nations  has  inflicted 
on  the  peace  and  honor  of  the  United  States  are  acknowledged 
to  be  curses  of  the  most  irritating  and  affecting  nature ;  but  the 
gentleman  has  said  more  for  England  and  France  than  either 
of  them  have  before  said  for  themselves,  when  he  attributes  to 
his  own  government  the  misconduct  which  has  produced  those 
evils.  It  was  scarcely  to  be  expected  that  any  state  of  internal 
division  or  any  views  of  whatever  description  would  have  pro- 
duced on  this  floor  an  assertion  which  has  thus  put  a  new  argu- 
ment in  the  hands  of  our  enemies  in  justification  of  their  ag- 
gressions on  us ;  it  is  more  than  our  enemies  have  asserted.  "We 
have  heard  indeed  from  France  and  England  that  their  decrees 
and  orders,  which  make  the  present  voluntary  retirement  from 
the  seas  necessary  on  our  part,  were  the  effect  of  an  unjusti- 
fiable attack,  which  each  has  attributed  in  the  first  instance  to 
the  other.  Each  criminates  the  other,  and  not  America,  with 
being  the  author  of  the  peculiar  mode  of  warfare  which  has 
proved  so  destructive  to  the  rights  of  neutrals.  The  very  lan- 
guage of  their  orders  and  decrees  assumes  this  position,  and 
they  are  all  prefaced  with  the  declaration  that  their  orders  are 
enacted  in  the  spirit  of  retaliation  on  each  other,  and  not,  sir, 
for  any  offence  which  our  Government  has  been  the  author  of, 
as  the  gentleman  now  tells  the  American  people ;  for  what  pur- 
pose let  the  nation  judge. 

Remove  the  embargo  and  we  must  arm  our  vessels,  and  war 
is  at  once  declared.  Compare  the  evils,  both  of  great  extent.  I 
admit,  by  the  embargo,  we  lose  half  the  value  of  the  products  of 
our  country,  or  the  receipt  of  it  is  suspended ;  by  war,  to  admit 
the  effect  in  this  particular,  no  worse,  at  least  it  could  be  no 
better;  but  have  we  counted  the  costs  of  the  armies  we  are  to 
raise,  and  to  pay,  of  the  supplies  we  are  to  furnish,  of  the  loss 
of  our  blood,  and  the  diminution  of  our  strength,  of  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  profits  of  agriculture  itself,  by  calling  men  from  their 
domestic  occupations,  and  lessening  the  number  of  hands  for 
tillage — have  we  calculated  the  thousand  other  evils  which  fol- 
low in  the  train  of  war  ?  To  plunge  into  war,  sir,  to  escape  the 
curse  of  the  embargo,  would  be  truly  fulfilling  the  adage  of  old 
— "out  of  the  frying-pan  into  the  fire." 


THE    EMBARGO  135 

Mr.  Masters  censured  President  Jefferson  for  his  re- 
fusal to  ratify  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  which 
had  been  signed  by  James  Monroe  and  William  Pinkney. 
He  said: 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  not  undertake  to  say  that  the  rejected 
treaty  is  so  advantageous  as  we  had  a  right  to  expect.  But  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare  that  it,  or  even  Jay 's  treaty,  is  preferable 
to  the  present  state  of  our  affairs.  Can  we  expect  that  nation, 
whose  navy  commands  the  seas,  will  sacrifice  that  navy,  or  any 
part  of  her  power,  by  conceding  the  point  of  search  for  her  sea- 
men on  board  of  neutral  vessels?  It  is  inconsistent  with  their 
interest,  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  their  superiority.  My  wish 
is  to  raise  the  embargo  and  arm  our  vessels.  The  nation  cannot 
bear  the  pressure.  The  embargo  virtually  inhibits  all  inter- 
course with  foreign  nations;  the  effects  are  and  will  be  per- 
nicious to  the  agricultural  productions  of  this  country,  and 
produce  will  fall  to  the  lowest  ebb,  and  enforce  the  most  unpar- 
alleled distress  on  the  community.  Commerce  ought  always  to 
be  left  to  the  merchant,  unshackled  and  unembarrassed,  as  much 
as  possible.  Our  commercial  intercourse  is  the  principal  re- 
source, both  of  revenue  and  commercial  opulence.  The  embargo 
will  tear  up  by  the  roots  and  annihilate  the  commerce  of  this 
country.  And  the  effects  will  be  heavy  taxes,  an  exhausted 
treasury,  a  diminished  and  ruined  revenue.  It  weakens  your 
own  power,  fetters  your  operations,  and  deludes  your  citizens; 
it  devours  not  only  the  fruits  but  the  seeds  of  industry.  It  will 
sink  down  and  depress  the  nation  to  an  absence  of  hope  and  a 
want  of  resources;  it  will  be  felt  by  the  nation  as  a  calamity, 
without  deciding  the  general  question  of  dispute.  Prove  to  me 
the  embargo  is  consistent  with  common  sense,  and  will  be  the 
means  of  adjusting  our  differences  with  the  belligerent  powers, 
and  I  will  then  be  an  advocate  for  it.  It  may  be  good  in  theory, 
but  it  is  chimerical  in  practice,  a  mere  speculative  proposition. 
Search  all  the  histories  of  the  world  and  you  will  not  find  eleven 
hundred  thousand  tons  of  shipping,  of  one  of  the  greatest  com- 
mercial nations,  embargoed  for  an  unlimited  time. 

If  you  entertain  a  sense  of  the  many  blessings  which  you 
have  enjoyed;  if  you  value  a  continuance  of  that  commerce 
which  is  the  source  of  so  much  opulence ;  if  you  wish  to  preserve 
that  high  state  of  prosperity  by  which  the  country  has>  for  some 
years  past,  been  so  eminently  blessed,  you  lose  all  these  advan- 
tages by  continuing  the  embargo  and  neglecting  to  arm  your 
vessels.    Restore,  then,  confidence  and  vigor  to  commerce.    You 


136  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

are  at  war  with  your  own  interest  and  every  idea  of  policy; 
instead  of  protecting  commerce  you  destroy  it. 

In  whatever  view  the  embargo  presents  itself  it  appears  to 
me  to  be  fraught  with  impolicy;  it  was  laid  at  midnight;  that 
miserable  scene  was  closed  under  the  darkness  which  suits  with 
it,  and  under  the  secret  shelter  of  our  own  walls.  If  we  are  to 
go  to  war,  you  have,  instead  of  warlike  preparations  and  exert- 
ing every  sinew  of  national  ability,  laid  an  embargo,  and  ob- 
tained just  nothing. 

The  policy  of  France,  as  regards  Great  Britain,  is  to  make 
a  warlike  non-intercourse,  and  we  have,  by  a  side-wind,  fallen 
into  the  measure,  adopted  and  sanctioned  it ;  we  have  abandoned 
the  great  highway  of  nations :  our  dispute  with  Great  Britain  is 
about  commercial  rights;  we  have  given  them  up. 

Is  this  country  at  that  crisis  when  we  shall  surrender  all 
those  rights  her  citizens  hold  most  dear?  God  forbid!  I  have 
contemplated  upon  the  embargo,  which  is  hazardous  and  im- 
politic, with  great  pain  and  anxiety,  and  I  turn  my  face  from 
it  with  horror.  If  there  are  any  who  improperly  foster  and 
countenance  the  threatening  storm,  and  whatever  consequences 
may  follow,  they  are  answerable  to  their  country  and  their  God. 

All  the  advocates  of  the  embargo  on  this  floor  have  admitted 
that  it  was  oppressive  and  a  curse.  Take  away  this  curse  and 
arm  your  vessels.  It  does  not  follow,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  [Mr.  Love]  supposes,  that  arming  will  involve  us  in  a 
war.  When  Great  Britain  finds  we  resist  the  French  decrees 
she  will  revoke  her  orders  of  council.  When  France  sees  she 
cannot  bring  us  into  her  views  she  will  revoke  her  decrees. 

Mb.  Fisk. — The  gentleman  last  up  and  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  [Mr.  Randolph]  yesterday  have  expressed  sentiments 
which,  if  they  once  take  root  in  this  nation,  will  prostrate  your 
liberties  and  rights  at  the  feet  of  foreign  governments.  The 
gentleman  who  just  took  his  seat  has  observed  that  the  subject 
of  impressment  was  the  main  block  in  the  way  of  negotiation. 
Very  true,  it  was,  sir ;  it  goes  to  the  personal  liberty  and  secur- 
ity of  your  citizens;  and,  if  you  surrender  that  right,  what  do 
you  expect  those  citizens  will  say  to  you  ?  Do  you  expect  they 
will  greet  you  with,  "well  done  thou  good  and  faithful  serv- 
ant?'' What  can  the  gentleman  think  when  he  recollects  the 
sensation  displayed  at  New  York  on  the  death  of  Pierce,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  exercise  by  Britain  of  the  right  of  impressment  ? 
Were  those  tears  and  lamentations  feigned,  or  were  they  the 
sincere  effusions  of  citizens  feeling  the  injury  done  them,  and 
burning  with  indignation  at  seeing  their  fellow-citizens  mur- 


THE    EMBARGO  137 

dered  almost  before  their  face?  If  we  could  believe  what  the 
gentleman  now  suggests  we  should  suppose  that  the  liberties 
and  lives  of  our  citizens  were  of  no  value  compared  with  com- 
merce. 

I  am  a  little  surprised  to  hear  gentlemen  telling  us  that  arm- 
ing our  merchant  vessels  would  not  produce  war.  Why  arm, 
if  they  are  not  to  defend  themselves9  If  the  belligerents  de- 
fend their  proceedings,  will  they  not  resist  our  vessels  arming 
against  their  orders?  Could  it  be  done  without  being  met  by  a 
declaration  of  war?  But  the  gentleman  from  New  York  has 
told  us  that  if  we  suffer  our  merchants  to  arm  the  British  would 
consider  it  a  sufficient  token  of  our  resistance  to  the  French 
decrees,  and  remove  their  orders  of  council.  You  have  seen  all 
the  decrees  and  orders  which  make  innovations  on  the  law  of 
nations  and  subject  our  commerce  to  plunder.  Look  at  the 
treaty  which  our  Government  is  on  this  floor  condemned  for  not 
signing,  with  the  note  annexed,  declaring  that,  if  we  submit  to 
the  decrees  of  France,  His  Britannic  Majesty  would  consider 
himself  bound  not  to  observe  the  treaty. 

What  do  the  British  ministers  offer  us?  If  we  will  trade  as 
they  please,  and  pay  them  a  duty  on  all  our  exports,  we  may 
carry  on  our  commerce.  Is  it  possible  that  any  man  who  pro- 
fesses himself  an  American  could  accede  to  this?  The  spirit  of 
1776,  refusing  to  pay  a  duty  of  two  per  cent,  on  tea,  would  cer- 
tainly not  now  yield  that  for  which  they  then  contended,  and 
become  again  tributary  to  the  British  Government.  And  yet 
gentlemen  wish  us  to  raise  the  embargo,  to  embrace  these  regu- 
lations, open  all  our  ports  to  this  fettered  commerce,  and  will 
not  place  it  in  the  power  of  the  Executive  to  suspend  the  em- 
bargo. I  am  a  little  astonished  that  gentlemen  who  consider  the 
embargo  as  the  heaviest  curse  which  could  befall  this  nation 
should  be  against  any  measure  for  removing  its  pressure.  But 
so  it  is.  Here  permit  me  to  say  that  I  admire  the  flexibility  of 
the  sentiments  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph) 
who,  in  combating  the  non-importation  law,  said  that  if  we  take 
measures  at  all  they  should  be  strong  measures;  none  of  your 
milk-and-water  measures,  but  an  embargo;  which  would  be  an 
efficient  measure. 

Mb.  Key. — Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  review  this  law  and  its  ef- 
fects. In  a  commercial  point  of  view  it  has  annihilated  our 
trade.  In  an  agricultural  point  of  view  it  has  paralyzed  in- 
dustry. I  have  heard  that  the  touch  of  Midas  converted  every- 
thing into  gold ;  but  the  embargo  law,  like  the  head  of  Medusa, 
turns  everything  into  stone.     Our  most  fertile  lands  are  re- 


138  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

duced  to  sterility,  so  far  as  it  respects  our  surplus  product.  As 
a  measure  of  political  economics  it  will  drive  (if  continued)  our 
seamen  into  foreign  employ,  and  our  fishermen  to  foreign  sand- 
banks. In  a  financial  point  of  view  it  has  dried  up  our  revenue, 
and  if  continued  will  close  the  sales  of  Western  lands,  and  the 
payment  of  instalments  of  past  sales ;  for  unless  produce  can  be 
sold  payments  cannot  be  made.  As  a  war  measure  the  embargo 
has  not  been  advocated. 

It  remains,  then,  to  consider  its  effects  as  a  peace  measure — 
a  measure  inducing  peace.  I  grant,  sir,  that  if  the  friends  of 
the  embargo  had  rightly  calculated  its  effects ;  if  it  had  brought 
the  belligerents  of  Europe  to  a  sense  of  justice  and  respect  for 
our  rights,  through  the  weakness  and  dependence  of  their  West 
India  possessions,  it  would  have  been  infinitely  wise  and  desir- 
able, and  that  they  voted  for  it  with  such  noble  views  I  have  no 
doubt.  But,  sir,  the  experience  of  near  four  months  has  not  pro- 
duced that  effect;  and  I  have  endeavored  to  show  from  the 
situation  of  our  country,  the  manner  in  which  the  law  is  exe- 
cuted, the  demand  for  subsistence,  the  consequent  rise  in  price, 
and  the  facility  of  supply,  that  the  West  Indies  (British)  will 
be  supplied. 

If  that  be  the  case,  if  such  should  be  the  result,  then  will  the 
embargo  of  all  measures  be  the  most  acceptable  to  Britain;  by 
occluding  our  ports  you  give  to  her  ships  the  exclusive  use  of 
the  ocean;  and  you  give  to  her  despairing  West  India  planter 
the  monopoly  of  sugar  and  rum  and  coffee  to  the  European 
world.  But,  sir,  what  are  we?  A  peaceable  agricultural  peo- 
ple, of  simple  and  I  trust  virtuous  habits,  of  stout  hearts  and 
willing  minds,  and  a  brave,  powerful,  but  badly  disciplined 
militia,  unarmed,  and  without  troops ;  and  whom  are  we  to  come 
in  conflict  with?  The  master  of  continental  Europe  in  the  full 
career  of  universal  domination,  and  the  mistress  of  the  ocean 
contending  for  self-preservation;  nations  who  feel  power  and 
forget  right.  What  man  can  be  weak  enough  to  suppose  that 
a  sense  of  justice  can  repress  or  regulate  the  conduct  of  Bona- 
parte? We  need  not  resort  to  other  nations  for  examples.  Has 
he  not,  in  a  manner  as  flagrant  as  flagitious,  directly,  openly, 
publicly  violated  and  broken  a  solemn  treaty  entered  into  with 
us?  Did  he  not  stipulate  that  our  property  should  pass  free 
even  to  enemy  ports,  and  has  he  not  burnt  our  ships  at  sea 
under  the  most  causeless  pretexts?  Look  to  England;  see  her 
conduct  to  us ;  do  we  want  any  further  evidence  of  what  she  will 
do  in  the  hour  of  impending  peril  than  the  attack  on  Copen- 
hagen?    That  she  prostrates  all  rights  that  come  in  collision 


THE    EMBARGO  139 

with  her  self-preservation?  Strangely  infatuated  would  she  be, 
to  make  our  repealing  the  embargo  to  depend  on  the  acts  of 
governments,  which  will  be  annulled  whenever  their  interest  or 
their  danger  prompt  them.  No,  sir ;  let  us  pursue  the  steady  line 
of  rigid  impartiality;  let  us  hold  the  scales  of  impartial  neu- 
trality with  a  high  and  steady  hand,  and  export  our  products  to, 
and  bring  back  supplies  from,  all  who  will  trade  with  us.  Much 
of  the  world  is  yet  open  to  us,  and  let  us  profit  of  the  occasion. 

At  present  we  exercise  no  neutral  rights;  we  have  quit  the 
ocean;  we  have  abandoned  our  rights;  we  have  retired  to  our 
shell.  Sooner  than  thus  continue  our  merchantmen  should  arm 
to  protect  legitimate  trade.  Sir,  I  believe  war  itself,  as  we  could 
carry  it  on,  would  produce  more  benefit  and  less  cost  than  the 
millions  lost  by  the  continuance  of  the  embargo. 

Mr.  Campbell. — It  is  true,  sir,  we  have  abandoned  our  com- 
merce with  Great  Britain,  but  not  to  her;  we  have  retired  from 
the  ocean,  and  in  retiring  have  carried  with  us  almost  the  whole 
commerce  of  the  European  world.  The  belligerent  powers  can- 
not carry  on  commerce  with  each  other,  and  there  are  no  neu- 
trals in  Europe  with  which  they  can  trade — what  commerce, 
then,  is  abandoned  by  us  to  Great  Britain  ?  There  is  scarcely  a 
merchant  vessel  that  sails  the  ocean — she  can  hardly  find  a  soli- 
tary ship  to  pursue — we  had  carried  on  almost  the  whole  of  the 
neutral  trade — we  were  forced  to  abandon  it — we  did  so — we 
retired,  and  left  the  great  Leviathan  of  the  ocean  to  roam  about 
without  a  solitary  object  upon  which  to  prey.  Let  gentlemen, 
then,  inform  us  what  commerce  Great  Britain  has  acquired  by 
this  measure ;  they  can  point  out  none ;  they  cannot  designate  a 
single  branch  of  trade  of  any  importance  which  Great  Britain 
has  got  by  our  retiring.  But  let  us  notice  what  the  first  states- 
men in  that  country  say  on  this  subject — and  they  seem  to  have 
furnished  the  full  to  what  was  said  on  this  floor,  as  has  fre- 
quently been  the  case,  with  only  this  difference,  that  they  stated 
the  whole  case,  whereas  a  part  only  was  stated  here.  They  say 
that,  in  consequence  of  their  orders  of  council,  you  have  aban- 
doned your  commerce,  as  you  ought  to  have  done ;  and  yet  they 
inquire  what  is  the  commerce  thus  abandoned?  They  admit 
they  have  all  that  is  left,  but  they  inquire  what  that  is;  they 
cannot  ascertain  it ;  they  say  there  is  none,  and  in  this  they  are 
correct.  With  regard  to  the  effect  of  the  embargo  they  state 
what  has  been  before,  in  substance,  stated  on  this  floor,  what 
was  always  considered,  and  so  stated,  would  be  the  effect  of  this 
measure.  They  say  the  French  West  India  islands  will  starve ; 
but,  supposing  this  to  be  the  case,  they  inquire  what  will  become 


140  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

of  their  own  islands,  whose  sole  dependence  for  subsistence  is  on 
the  commerce  and  productions  of  America.  They  say  they  must 
also  starve ;  they  inquire  if  a  famine  must  be  produced  in  Eng- 
land, in  order  to  supply  their  islands  with  provisions,  which 
they  could  not  even  then  effect.  They  pursue  the  picture,  which 
every  one  must  have  seen ;  they  describe  the  distresses  that  must 
be  produced  in  Great  Britain  itself,  as  well  as  in  the  islands ;  and 
ascribe  the  whole  of  these  misfortunes  to  the  orders  of  council 
of  their  own  government.  This  does  not  go  to  prove  that  the 
embargo  was  the  very  measure  which  Great  Britain  wanted; 
nor  does  it  show  that  she  acquired  any  real  or  valuable  acquisi- 
tion of  commerce  by  our  retiring  from  the  ocean ;  it  contradicts 
the  assertion  that  the  embargo  has  failed  in  its  object,  and 
proves,  in  a  very  decided  manner,  that  it  is  in  full  operation, 
and  in  a  fair  way  toward  effecting  the  object  for  which  it  was 
laid ;  and  that  its  pressure  is  severely  felt  by  both  the  great  bel- 
ligerent powers. 

Mr.  Randolph. — The  embargo  power,  which  now  holds  in  its 
palsying  gripe  all  the  hopes  of  this  nation,  is  distinguished  by 
two  characteristics  of  material  import,  in  deciding  what  control 
shall  be  left  over  it  during  our  recess.  I  allude  to  its  greatness 
and  its  novelty. 

As  to  its  greatness,  nothing  is  like  it.  Every  class  of  men 
feels  it.  This  power  resembles  not  the  mild  influences  of  an 
intelligent  mind,  balancing  the  interests  and  conditions  of  men, 
and  so  conducting  a  complicated  machine  as  to  make  inevitable 
pressure  bear  upon  its  strongest  parts.  But  it  is  like  one  of  the 
blind  visitations  of  nature ;  a  tornado  or  a  whirlwind.  It  sweeps 
away  the  weak;  it  only  strips  the  strong.  The  humble  plant, 
uprooted,  is  overwhelmed  by  the  tempest.  The  oak  escapes  with 
the  loss  of  nothing  except  its  annual  honors.  It  is  true  the 
sheriff  does  not  enter  any  man's  house  to  collect  a  tax  from  his 
property.  But  want  knocks  at  his  door  and  poverty  thrusts  his 
face  into  the  window.  And  what  relief  can  the  rich  extend? 
They  sit  upon  their  heaps  and  feel  them  mouldering  into  ruins 
under  them.  The  regulations  of  society  forbid  what  was  once 
property  to  be  so  any  longer.  For  property  depends  on  circula- 
tion ;  on  exchange ;  on  ideal  value.  The  power  of  property  is  all 
relative.  It  depends  not  merely  upon  opinion  here,  but  upon 
opinion  in  other  countries.  If  it  be  cut  off  from  its  destined 
market  much  of  it  is  worth  nothing,  and  all  of  it  is  worth  in- 
finitely less  than  when  circulation  is  unobstructed. 

But  the  magnitude  of  the  embargo  power  is  not  more  remark- 
able than  its  novelty.    An  experiment  such  as  is  now  making, 


THE    EMBARGO  141 

was  never  before — I  will  not  say  tried — it  never  before  entered 
into  the  human  imagination.  There  is  nothing  like  it  in  the 
narrations  of  history  or  in  the  tales  of  fiction.  All  the  habits 
of  a  mighty  nation  are  at  once  counteracted.  All  their  property 
depreciated.  All  their  external  connections  violated.  Five  mil- 
lions of  people  are  engaged.  They  cannot  go  beyond  the  limits 
of  that  once  free  country;  now  they  are  not  even  permitted  to 
thrust  their  own  property  through  the  grates.  I  am  not  now 
questioning  its  policy,  its  wisdom,  or  its  practicability,  I  am 
merely  stating  the  fact.  And  I  ask  if  such  a  power  as  this,  thus 
great,  thus  novel,  thus  interfering  with  all  the  great  passions 
and  interests  of  a  whole  people,  ought  to  be  left  for  six  months 
in  operation  without  any  power  of  control,  except  upon  the  oc- 
currence of  certain  specified  and  arbitrary  contingencies !  Who 
can  foretell  when  the  spirit  of  endurance  will  cease?  Who, 
when  the  strength  of  nature  shall  outgrow  the  strength  of  your 
bonds?  Or,  if  they  do,  who  can  give  a  pledge  that  the  patience 
of  the  people  will  not  first  be  exhausted  ?  I  make  a  supposition, 
Mr.  Chairman — you  are  a  great  physician;  you  take  a  hearty, 
hale  man,  in  the  very  pride  of  health,  his  young  blood  all  active 
in  his  veins,  and  you  outstretch  him  on  a  bed;  you  stop  up  all 
his  natural  orifices,  you  hermetically  seal  down  his  pores,  so  that 
nothing  shall  escape  outward,  and  that  all  his  functions  and  all 
his  humors  shall  be  turned  inward  upon  his  system.  While 
your  patient  is  laboring  in  the  very  crisis  of  this  course  of  treat- 
ment you,  his  physician,  take  a  journey  into  a  far  country,  and 
you  say  to  his  attendant,  "I  have  a  great  experiment  here  in 
process,  and  a  new  one.  It  is  all  for  the  good  of  the  young  man, 
so  do  not  fail  to  adhere  to  it.  No  attention  is  to  be  paid  to  any 
internal  symptom  which  may  occur.  If  the  patient  be  convulsed 
you  are  to  remove  none  of  my  bandages.  But  in  case  something 
external  should  happen,  if  the  sky  should  fall,  and  larks  should 
begin  to  appear,  if  three  birds  of  Paradise  should  fly  into  the 
window,  the  great  purpose  of  all  these  sufferings  is  answered. 
Then,  and  then  only,  have  you  my  authority  to  administer 
relief." 

Opposition  to  the  Embakgo 

During  the  following  recess  of  Congress  the  feeling 
against  the  embargo  became  extreme  in  certain  parts 
of  the  country,  particularly  New  England. 

The  Federal  courts  there  began  to  find  it  difficult  to 
secure  convictions  from  juries  of  even  flagrant  viola- 
tions of  the  act,  and  smuggling  over  the  Canadian  bor~ 


142 


GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 


der  became  a  safe  and  profitable  and  extensive  trade. 
Indeed,  some  of  the  State  courts  decided  that  the  em- 
bargo was  unconstitutional,  since  it  went  beyond  the 
regulation  of  commerce  to  its  annihilation.  The  State 
legislatures,  too,  following  the  precedent  of  the  Ken- 


^•*^ 


7k 


. 


THE   AMERICAN    SNAPPING-TURTLE 

[Cartoon  on  the  Embargo.] 
From  toe  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 


tucky  and  Virginia  resolutions,  which  they  had  formerly 
denounced,  expressed  their  condemnation  of  the  em- 
bargo, intimating  that  it  was  a  sectional  measure,  passed 
by  the  agricultural  Middle  and  Southern  States  at  the 
expense  of  commercial  New  England. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress  memorials  against 
the  embargo  poured  in  upon  that  body  from  various 
interests  injured  by  the  act.  It  appeared  that  every 
industry  but  domestic  manufacture  was  suffering. 

The  President  in  his  message  reported  that  the  em- 
bargo had  not  yet  been  effective  in  securing  the  revo- 
cation of  the  obnoxious  decrees  of  Great  Britain  and 
France,  but  that  it  had  been  the  means  of  "saving  our 
mariners,  and  our  vast  mercantile  property,  as  well  as 


THE    EMBARGO  143 

of  affording  time  for  prosecuting  the  defensive  and  pro- 
visional measures  called  for  by  the  occasion."  He 
added : 

It  has  demonstrated  to  foreign  nations  the  moderation  and 
firmness  which  govern  our  councils,  and  to  our  citizens  the 
necessity  of  uniting  in  support  of  the  laws  and  the  rights  of 
their  country,  and  has  thus  long  frustrated  those  usurpations 
and  spoliations  which,  if  resisted,  involved  war,  if  submitted  to, 
sacrificed  a  vital  principle  of  our  national  independence. 

He  therefore  left  the  matter  with  Congress  to  decide. 

On  November  21,  1808,  James  Hillhouse  [Conn.] 
offered  a  resolution  in  the  Senate  to  repeal  the  embargo. 
The  arguments  were  much  the  same  as  those  presented 
in  the  House  in  the  preceding  debate,  and  therefore  need 
not  be  repeated.  There  were,  however,  brought  forward 
in  the  course  of  the  debate  opposing  views  of  the  effect- 
iveness of  an  appeal  to  the  patriotism  of  the  country 
when  this  is  at  the  sacrifice  of  its  financial  interests, 
which  has  a  psychological  import  not  limited  to  the  spe- 
cial crisis,  and  therefore  is  deserving  of  presentation. 
Senator  Hillhouse  and  Senator  William  B.  Giles  [Va.] 
were  the  antagonists. 

Public  Honor  vs.  Private  Interest 
The  Senate,  November  21-24,  1808 

Sen.  Hillhouse. — This  embargo,  instead  of  operating  on 
those  nations  which  had  been  violating  our  rights,  was  fraught 
with  evils  and  privations  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
They  were  the  sufferers.  And  have  we  adopted  the  monkish 
plan  of  scourging  ourselves  for  the  sins  of  others?  He  hoped 
not;  and  that,  having  made  the  experiment  and  found  that  it 
had  not  produced  its  expected  effect,  they  would  abandon  it,  as 
a  measure  wholly  inefficient  as  to  the  objects  intended  by  it,  and 
as  having  weakened  the  great  hold  which  we  had  on  Great  Brit- 
ain, from  her  supposed  dependence  on  us  for  raw  materials. 

Some  gentlemen  appeared  to  build  up  expectations  of  the 
efficiency  of  this  system  by  an  addition  to  it  of  a  non-intercourse 
law.  Mr.  H.  treated  this  as  a  futile  idea.  He  said  he  was  young 
when  the~old  non-intercourse  took  place,  but  he  remembered  it 


144  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

well,  and  had  then  his  ideas  on  the  subject.  The  British  army- 
was  then  at  their  door,  burning  their  towns  and  ravaging  the 
country,  and  at  least  as  much  patriotism  existed  then  as  now; 
but  British  fabrics  were  received  and  consumed  to  almost  as 
great  an  extent  as  before  the  prohibition.  "When  the  country  was 
in  want  of  clothing,  and  could  get  it  for  one-fourth  price  from 
the  British,  what  was  the  consequence?  Why,  all  the  zealous 
patriots — for  this  work  of  tarring  and  feathering,  and  meeting 
in  mobs  to  destroy  their  neighbor's  property,  because  he  could 
not  think  quite  as  fast  as  they  did,  which  seemed  to  be  coming 
in  fashion  now,  had  been  carried  on  then  with  great  zeal — these 
patriots,  although  all  intercourse  was  penal,  carried  on  com- 
merce notwithstanding.  Now,  Mr.  H.  wanted  to  know  how  a 
non-intercourse  law  was  to  be  executed  by  us  with  a  coast  of 
fifteen  hundred  miles  open  to  Great  Britain  by  sea,  and  joining 
her  by  land?  Her  goods  would  come  through  our  courts  of 
admiralty  by  the  means  of  friendly  captors;  they  would  be 
brought  in,  condemned,  and  then  naturalized,  as  Irishmen  are 
now  naturalized,  before  they  have  been  a  month  in  the  country. 

Sen.  Giles. — Sir,  I  have  always  understood  that  there  were 
two  objects  contemplated  by  the  embargo  laws.  The  first,  pre- 
cautionary, operating  upon  ourselves.  The  second,  coercive, 
operating  upon  the  aggressing  belligerents.  Precautionary,  in 
saving  our  seamen,  our  ships,  and  our  merchandise,  from  the 
plunder  of  our  enemies,  and  avoiding  the  calamities  of  war. 
Coercive,  by  addressing  strong  appeals  to  the  interests  of  both 
the  belligerents.  The  first  object  has  been  answered  beyond  my 
most  sanguine  expectations. 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  ever  watchful  and 
anxious  for  the  preservation  of  the  persons  and  property 
of  all  our  fellow-citizens,  but  particularly  of  the  merchants, 
whose  property  is  most  exposed  to  danger,  and  of  the  seamen 
whose  persons  are  also  most  exposed,  recommended  the  embargo 
for  the  protection  of  both ;  and  it  has  saved  and  protected  both. 

But,  sir,  these  are  not  the  only  good  effects  of  the  embargo. 
It  has  preserved  our  peace — it  has  saved  our  honor — it  has  saved 
our  national  independence.  Are  these  savings  not  worth  notice  ? 
Are  these  blessings  not  worth  preserving? 

Mr.  President,  the  eyes  of  the  world  are  now  turned  upon 
us;  if  we  submit  to  these  indignities  and  aggressions,  Great 
Britain  herself  would  despise  us ;  she  would  consider  us  an  out- 
cast among  nations;  she  would  not  own  us  for  her  offspring; 
France  would  despise  us;  all  the  world  would  despise  us;  and, 
what  is  infinitely  worse,  we  should  be  compelled  to  despise  our- 


THE    EMBARGO  145 

selves!  If  we  resist  we  shall  command  the  respect  of  our  ene- 
mies, the  sympathies  of  the  world,  and  the  noble  approbation  of 
our  own  consciences. 

Mr.  President,  our  fate  is  in  our  own  hands;  let  us  have 
union  and  we  have  nothing  to  fear.  So  highly  do  I  prize  union, 
at  this  awful  moment,  that  I  would  prefer  any  one  measure  of 
resistance  with  union  to  any  other  measure  of  resistance  with 
division;  let  us,  then,  sir,  banish  all  personal  feelings;  let  us 
present  to  our  enemies  the  formidable  front  of  an  indissoluble 
band  of  brothers ;  nothing  else  is  necessary  to  our  success.  Mr. 
President,  unequal  as  this  contest  may  seem ;  favored  as  we  are 
by  our  situation,  and  under  the  blessing  of  a  beneficent  Provi- 
dence, who  has  never  lost  sight  of  the  United  States  in  times  of 
difficulty  and  trial,  I  have  the  most  perfect  confidence  that  if 
we  prove  true  to  ourselves  we  shall  triumph  over  our  enemies. 
Deeply  impressed  with  these  considerations,  I  am  prepared  to 
give  the  resolution  a  flat  and  decided  negative. 

The  views  of  statesmen  such  as  Giles  were  still  pre- 
dominant, and  on  January  9,  1809,  a  drastic  enforcing 
act  supplementary  to  the  embargo  was  passed.  This 
act  was  published  by  many  newspapers  in  New  Eng- 
land inclosed  in  black  borders  and  headed  by  such  mot- 
toes as  "Liberty  Is  Dead!" 

John  Quincy  Adams,  who  had  resigned  from  the  Sen- 
ate because  he  could  not  conscientiously  represent  his 
State  on  the  question  of  the  embargo,  informed  the  Gov- 
ernment in  February,  1809,  that  execution  of  the  en- 
forcing act  in  New  England  might  result  in  the  seces- 
sion of  its  five  States  from  the  Union, — indeed,  that  un- 
official negotiations  were  already  in  progress  for  British 
assistance  to  that  end. 

An  opportunity  was  afforded  the  President  to  "back 
water"  on  the  subject  by  intimations  received  from  the 
British  Government  that  its  objectionable  Orders  in 
Council  would  be  withdrawn  if  the  United  States  met  it 
half  way.  Accordingly  the  administration  secured  the 
passage  by  Congress  of  a  "  Non-Intercourse  Bill, ' '  which 
repealed  the  embargo  after  May  20,  1809,  and  gave  the 
President  power  to  open  trade  with  either  Great  Britain 
or  France  upon  the  repeal  of  its  oppressive  decrees  in 
so  far  as  these  related  to  the  United  States.     The  bill 


146  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

was  passed  by  the  Senate  on  February  21,  and  by  the 
House  on  February  27,  and  approved  by  the  President 
on  March  1,  1809. 

This  Non-Intercourse  Bill  was  to  continue  to  the  end 
of  the  next  session  of  Congress.  Owing  to  circumstances 
hereinafter  related  it  was  renewed,  and  continued  until 
abolished  by  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  in  1814. 

The  last  speaker  on  the  subject  in  the  House  (James 
Sloan,  of  New  Jersey)  expressed  the  prevalent  opinion 
both  of  the  embargo  and  the  device  by  which  it  had  been 
repealed,  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  could  not  detest  the  bill  more  than  he  did;  and 
yet  he  should  vote  for  it  for  this  reason,  that  the  people,  as  well 
as  himself,  were  so  heartily  tired  of  the  embargo  that  they  would 
be  glad  to  get  anything  else  in  place  of  it.  Another  reason  was 
that  it  contained  a  limitation  to  the  embargo  laws,  and  he  hoped 
that  the  embargo  would  expire  at  the  time  limited,  never  again 
to  be  resuscitated ;  that  it  would  be  dead,  dead,  dead. 


CHAPTER  VI 

Resistance  or  Submission  to  Great  Britain? 

The  British  Minister,  D.  M.  Erskine,  Withdraws  the  ' '  Orders  in  Council  * ' — 
His  Government  Repudiates  the  Action — Election  of  a  Militant  Congress 
— Message  of  President  James  Madison — Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations — Debate:  in  Favor  of  War  Measures,  Richard  M. 
Johnson  [Ky.],  Robert  Wright  [Md.],  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C] ;  Opposed, 
John  Randolph  [Va.] — The  President  Recommends  an  Embargo  as  Pre- 
liminary to  War — Debate  as  to  Its  Good  Faith:  in  Favor,  Henry  Clay 
[Ky.];    Opposed^  Mr.  Randolph.  Josiah  Quiney,  3rd  [Mass.]. 

THE  administration  of  James  Madison  began  under 
most  favorable  auspices  in  respect  to  foreign  re- 
lations. On  April  19,  1809,  the  British  minister 
at  Washington,  D.  M.  Erskine,  withdrew  the  "Orders 
in  Council,"  and  on  the  same  day  President  Madison 
proclaimed  the  full  renewal  of  trade  with  that  country 
after  June  10,  1809. 

The  satisfaction  over  this  agreement  was,  however, 
short-lived,  since  the  British  Government  repudiated  the 
action  of  its  minister  as  unauthorized  and  recalled  him 
in  disgrace.  Accordingly,  on  August  9,  1809,  President 
Madison  by  proclamation  reestablished  the  rescinded 
part  of  the  Non-Intercourse  Law  which  related  to  Great 
Britain.  F.  J.  Jackson,  the  successor  of  Erskine, 
charged  that  the  agreement  with  his  predecessor  had 
been  obtained  by  trickery,  and  the  Secretary  of  State, 
Eobert  Smith,  refused  to  hold  communications  with  him. 

The  Non-Intercourse  Act  was  equally  ineffective  in 
bringing  France  to  terms. 

In  January,  1810,  Napoleon  informed  John  Arm- 
strong, our  minister  to  France,  that  the  repeal  of  his 
various  "Decrees"  was  dependent  on  the  withdrawal 
by  Great  Britain  of  her  blockade  of  the  European  con- 
tinent, and  on  March  23,  1810,  he  issued  his  ^Rambou- 

147 


148  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

illet  Decree,"  by  which  132  American  vessels,  of  a  value 
of  $8,000,000,  which  had  entered  the  ports  of  France 
and  her  allies,  were  condemned  and  sold. 

On  May  1,  1810,  Congress  replaced  the  Non-Inter- 
course Act,  which  was  shortly  to  expire,  with  one  which 
removed  all  restrictions  from  commerce  but  excluded 
248  British  and  French  ships  of  war  from  the  harbors 
of  the  United  States  until  either  country  should  with- 
draw its  restrictions  on  American  commerce.  This  bill 
contained  a  proviso  that  if  either  belligerent  withdrew 
its  decrees  before  March  3,  1811,  and  the  other  should 
fail  to  do  so  within  three  months  thereafter,  the  Presi- 
dent would  restore  the  Non-Intercourse  Act  against  the 
delinquent  alone. 

Napoleon  seized  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  him 
to  involve  the  United  States  in  war  with  Great  Britain. 
On  August  5,  1810,  he  informed  Minister  Armstrong  that 
he  had  revoked  his  obnoxious  decrees,  on  the  under- 
standing that  Great  Britain  would  revoke  her  Orders 
in  Council  or,  on  her  failure  to  do  so,  the  United  States 
would  assert  her  rights  in  the  matter. 

On  November  2  the  President  accepted  this  arrange- 
ment. The  British  Government  refused  to  revoke  its 
orders,  denying  that  Napoleon  had  made  a  bona  fide 
revocation  because  he  retained  the  money  for  which  the 
vessels  seized  under  the  Rambouillet  Decree  had  been 
sold,  and  because  the  French  prize  courts  refused  to 
consider  any  of  the  former  decrees  revoked. 

Notwithstanding  this  protest,  the  Non-Intercourse 
Act  went  into  effect  against  Great  Britain  alone  on 
March  2,  1811. 

In  the  elections  to  the  succeeding  Congress,  the  peo- 
ple of  the  country,  weary  of  temporizing  measures,  had 
replaced  many  of  the  old  • i  peace-at-any-price ' '  states- 
men with  younger  men  of  a  more  violent  temper. 
Among  these  may  be  mentioned  Henry  Clay  [Ky.],  who 
entered  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  unusual 
door  of  the  Senate,  and  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C.].  Clay, 
owing  to  the  prestige  he  had  gained  in  the  Upper  House, 
was  elected  Speaker  by  the  new  element. 

The  President  convened  Congress  at  an  e&rly  date. 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  149 

In  his  message  he  reviewed  the  events  which  had  taken 
place  in  the  recess  of  the  national  legislature,  and  rec- 
ommended that  action  be  taken  to  maintain  the  nation's 
rights. 

Message  to  Congress 
President  Madison,  November  5,  1811 

The  period  is  arrived  which  claims  from  the  legislative  guar- 
dians of  the  national  rights  a  system  of  more  ample  provisions 
for  maintaining  them.  Notwithstanding  the  scrupulous  justice, 
the  protracted  moderation,  and  the  multiplied  efforts  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  to  substitute  for  the  accumulating  dangers 
to  the  peace  of  the  two  countries  all  the  mutual  advantages  of 
reestablished  friendship  and  confidence,  we  have  seen  that  the 
British  Cabinet  perseveres,  not  only  'in  withholding  a  remedy 
for  other  wrongs,  so  long  and  so  loudly  calling  for  it,  but  in  the 
execution,  brought  home  to  the  threshold  of  our  territory,  of 
measures  which,  under  existing  circumstances,  have  the  char- 
acter, as  well  as  the  effect,  of  war  on  our  lawful  commerce. 

With  this  evidence  of  hostile  inflexibility,  in  trampling  on 
rights  which  no  independent  nation  can  relinquish,  Congress 
will  feel  the  duty  of  putting  the  United  States  into  an  armor 
and  an  attitude  demanded  by  the  crisis,  and  corresponding  with 
the  national  spirit  and  expectations. 

On  November  29  Peter  B.  Porter,  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  made  the  following 
report : 

Armed  Resistance  Against  Great  Britain 

Report  op  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, November  29,  1811 

Without  recurring  to  the  multiplied  wrongs  of  which  we 
have  so  just  cause  of  complaint  against  the  two  great  bellig- 
erents, your  committee  will  only  call  your  attention,  at  this  time, 
to  the  systematic  aggression  of  those  powers,  authorized  by  their 
edicts  against  neutral  commerce — a  system  which,  as  regarded 
its  principles,  was  founded  on  pretensions  that  went  to  the  sub- 
version of  our  national  independence ;  and  which,  although  now 
abandoned  by  one  power,  is,  in  its  broad  and  destructive  opera- 
tion, as  still  enforced  by  the  other,  sapping  the  foundation  of 
our  prosperity. 


150  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

It  is  more  than  five  years  since  England  and  France,  in  viola- 
tion of  those  principles  of  justice  and  public  law  held  sacred 
by  all  civilized  nations,  commenced  this  unprecedented  system 
by  seizing  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
peaceably  pursuing  their  lawful  commerce  on  the  high  seas.  To 
shield  themselves  from  the  odium  which  such  outrage  must  in- 
cur, each  of  the  belligerents  sought  a  pretext  in  the  conduct  of 
the  other — each  attempting  to  justify  his  system  of  rapine  as  a 
retaliation  for  similar  acts  on  the  part  of  his  enemy.  As  if  the 
law  of  nations,  founded  on  the  eternal  rules  of  justice,  could 
sanction  a  principle  which,  if  ingrafted  into  our  municipal  code, 
would  excuse  the  crime  of  one  robber  upon  the  sole  plea  that 
the  unfortunate  object  of  his  rapacity  was  also  a  victim  to  the 
injustice  of  another.  The  fact  of  priority  could  be  true  as  to 
one  only  of  the  parties,  and,  whether  true  or  false,  could  furnish 
no  ground  of  justification. 

The  United  States,  thus  unexpectedly  and  violently  assailed 
by  the  two  greatest  powers  in  Europe,  withdrew  their  citizens 
and  property  from  the  ocean:  and,  cherishing  the  blessing  of 
peace,  although  the  occasion  would  have  fully  justified  war, 
sought  redress  in  an  appeal  to  the  justice  and  magnanimity  of 
the  belligerents.  When  this  appeal  had  failed  of  the  success 
which  was  due  to  its  moderation,  other  measures,  founded  on  the 
same  specific  policy,  but  applying  to  the  interests  instead  of  the 
justice  of  the  belligerents,  were  resorted  to.  Such  was  the  char- 
acter of  the  non-intercourse  and  non-importation  laws,  which 
invited  the  return  of  both  powers  to  their  former  state  of  ami- 
cable relations,  by  offering  commercial  advantages  to  the  one 
who  should  first  revoke  his  hostile  edicts,  and  imposing  restric- 
tions on  the  other. 

A  year  has  elapsed  since  the  French  decrees  were  rescinded, 
and  yet  Great  Britain,  instead  of  retracing  pari  passu  that 
course  of  unjustifiable  attack  on  neutral  rights  in  which  she 
professed  to  be  only  the  reluctant  follower  of  France,  has  ad- 
vanced with  bolder  and  continually  increasing  strides.  To  the 
categorical  demands  lately  made  by  our  Government  for  the 
repeal  of  her  Orders  in  Council,  she  has  affected  to  deny  the 
practical  extinction  of  the  French  decrees,  and  she  has,  more- 
over, advanced  a  new  and  unexpected  demand,  increasing  in 
hostility  the  orders  themselves.  She  has  insisted,  through  her 
accredited  minister  at  this  place,  that  the  repeal  of  the  Orders 
in  Council  must  be  preceded,  not  only  by  the  practical  abandon- 
ment of  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  so  far  as  they  infringe 
the  neutral  rights  of  the  United  States ;  but  by  the  renunciation 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  151 

on  the  part  of  France  of  the  whole  of  her  system  of  commercial 
warfare  against  Great  Britain,  of  which  those  decrees  originally 
formed  a  part. 

This  system  is  understood  to  consist  in  a  course  of  measures 
adopted  by  France  and  the  other  powers  on  the  Continent  sub- 
ject to,  or  in  alliance  with,  her,  calculated  to  prevent  the  intro- 
duction into  their  territories  of  the  produce  and  manufactures 
of  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies;  and  to  annihilate  her  trade 
with  them.  However  hostile  these  regulations  may  be  on  the 
part  of  France  toward  Great  Britain,  or  however  sensibly  the 
latter  may  feel  their  effects,  they  are,  nevertheless,  to  be  re- 
garded only  as  the  expedients  of  one  enemy  against  another,  for 
which  the  United  States,  as  a  neutral  power,  can,  in  no  respect, 
be  responsible;  they  are,  too,  in  exact  conformity  with  those 
which  Great  Britain  has  herself  adopted  and  acted  upon  in  time 
of  peace  as  well  as  war.  And  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that 
France  would  yield  to  the  unauthorized  demand  of  America 
what  she  seems  to  have  considered  as  one  of  the  most  powerful 
engines  of  the  present  war. 

Such  are  the  pretensions  upon  which  Great  Britain  founds 
the  violation  of  the  maritime  rights  of  the  United  States — pre- 
tensions not  theoretical  merely,  but  followed  up  by  a  desolating 
war  upon  our  unprotected  commerce.  The  ships  of  the  United 
States,  laden  with  the  products  of  our  own  soil  and  labor,  navi- 
gated by  our  own  citizens,  and  peaceably  pursuing  a  lawful 
trade,  are  seized  on  our  own  coasts,  at  the  very  mouths  of  our 
harbors,  condemned,  and  confiscated. 

Your  committee  are  not,  however,  of  that  sect  whose  worship 
is  at  the  shrine  of  a  calculating  avarice.  And,  while  we  are  lay- 
ing before  you  the  just  complaints  of  our  merchants  against  the 
plunder  of  their  ships  and  cargoes,  we  cannot  refrain  from  pre- 
senting to  the  justice  and  humanity  of  our  country  the  unhappy 
case  of  our  impressed  seamen.  Although  the  groans  of  these 
victims  of  barbarity  for  the  loss  of  (what  should  be  dearer  to 
Americans  than  life)  their  liberty;  although  the  cries  of  their 
wives  and  children,  in  the  privation  of  protectors  and  parents, 
have,  of  late,  been  drowned  in  the  louder  clamors  at  the  loss  of 
property;  yet  is  the  practice  of  forcing  our  mariners  into  the 
British  navy,  in  violation  of  the  rights  of  our  flag,  carried  on 
with  unabated  rigor  and  severity.  If  it  be  our  duty  to  encour- 
age the  fair  and  legitimate  commerce  of  this  country  by  pro- 
tecting the  property  of  the  merchant ;  then,  indeed,  by  as  much 
as  life  and  liberty  are  more  estimable  than  ships  and  goods,  so 
much  more  impressive  is  the  duty  to  shield  the  persons  of  our 


152  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

seamen,  whose  hard  and  honest  services  are  employed  equally 
with  those  of  the  merchants  in  advancing,  under  the  mantle  of 
its  laws,  the  interests  of  their  country. 

To  sum  up,  in  a  word,  the  great  causes  of  complaint  against 
Great  Britain,  your  committee  need  only  say  that  the  United 
States,  as  a  sovereign  and  independent  power,  claim  the  right  to 
use  the  ocean,  which  is  the  common  and  acknowledged  highway 
of  nations,  for  the  purposes  of  transporting,  in  their  own  ves- 
sels, the  products  of  their  own  soil  and  the  acquisitions  of  their 
own  industry,  to  a  market  in  the  ports  of  friendly  nations,  and 
to  bring  home,  in  return,  such  articles  as  their  necessities  or 
convenience  may  require — always  regarding  the  rights  of  bel- 
ligerents as  defined  by  the  established  laws  of  nations.  Great 
Britain,  in  defiance  of  this  incontestable  right,  captures  every 
American  vessel  bound  to,  or  returning  from,  a  port  where  her 
commerce  is  not  favored;  enslaves  our  seamen,  and,  in  spite  of 
our  remonstrances,  perseveres  in  these  aggressions. 

To  wrongs  so  daring  in  character,  and  so  disgraceful  in  their 
execution,  it  is  impossible  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
should  remain  indifferent.  We  must  now  tamely  and  quietly 
submit,  or  we  must  resist  by  those  means  which  God  has  placed 
within  our  reach. 

Your  committee  would  not  cast  a  shade  over  the  American 
name  by  the  expression  of  a  doubt  which  branch  of  this  alter- 
native will  be  embraced.  The  occasion  is  now  presented  when 
the  national  character,  misunderstood  and  traduced  for  a  time 
by  foreign  and  domestic  enemies,  should  be  vindicated.  If  we 
have  not  rushed  to  the  field  of  battle  like  the  nations  who  are  led 
by  the  mad  ambition  of  a  single  chief,  or  the  avarice  of  a  cor- 
rupted court,  it  has  not  proceeded  from  a  fear  of  war,  but  from 
our  love  of  justice  and  humanity.  That  proud  spirit  of  liberty 
and  independence  which  sustained  our  fathers  in  the  successful 
assertion  of  their  rights  against  foreign  aggression  is  not  yet 
sunk.  The  patriotic  fire  of  the  Revolution  still  burns  in  the 
American  breast  with  a  holy  and  unextinguishable  flame,  and 
will  conduct  this  nation  to  those  high  destinies  which  are  not 
less  the  reward  of  dignified  moderation  than  of  exalted  valor. 

But  we  have  borne  with  injury  until  forbearance  has  ceased 
to  be  a  virtue.  The  sovereignty  and  independence  of  these 
States,  purchased  and  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  our  fathers, 
from  whom  we  received  them,  not  for  ourselves  only,  but  as  the 
inheritance  of  our  posterity,  are  deliberately  and  systematically 
violated.  And  the  period  has  arrived  when,  in  the  opinion  of 
your  committee,  it  is  the  sacred  duty  of  Congress  to  call  forth 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  153 

the  patriotism  and  resources  of  the  country.  By  the  aid  of 
these,  and  with  the  blessing  of  God,  we  confidently  trust  we 
shall  be  enabled  to  procure  that  redress  which  has  been  sought 
for  by  justice,  by  remonstrance,  and  forbearance,  in  vain. 

Your  committee,  reserving  for  a  future  report  those  ulterior 
measures  which,  in  their  opinion,  ought  to  be  pursued,  would, 
at  this  time,  earnestly  recommend,  in  the  words  of  the  Presi- 
dent, "that  the  United  States  be  put  into  an  armor  and  attitude 
demanded  by  the  crisis,  and  corresponding  with  the  national 
spirit  and  expectations. ' ' 

The  committee  recommended  an  increase  of  the  army, 
a  refitting  of  the  navy,  and  resort  to  privateering. 

These  recommendations  were  adopted  after  long  and 
heated  debates,  of  which  the  first,  that  on  the  increase 
of  the  army,  contained  the  leading  arguments,  pro  and 
con. 

In  this  debate  the  following  were  the  chief  speakers 
in  the  affirmative:  Richard  M.  Johnson  [Ky.],  Robert 
Wright  [Md.],  and  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C.].  John  Ran- 
dolph [Va.],  the  free  lance,  was  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee and  the  only  one  who  dissented  from  the  resolu- 
tion, being  vehement  in  opposition  to  the  measure  when 
it  was  brought  before  the  House.  By  a  vote  of  110  to  22 
the  House  resolved  to  increase  the  army. 

On  Preparations  for  War 

House  of  Representatives,  December  6-16,  1811 

John  Randolph. — In  the  days  of  terror  we  shrunk  at  stand- 
ing armies ;  and  what  is  the  object  now — defence  ?  Who  ?  Free- 
men who  would  not  defend  themselves.  Are  seven  millions  of 
Americans  to  be  protected  in  their  lives  and  liberties  by  ten 
thousand  vagabonds  who  are  fit  food  for  gunpowder?  It  will 
be  necessary  to  know  the  ulterior  views  of  the  committee  on  this 
point.  It  will  be  proper,  before  a  vote  is  taken  on  this  resolu- 
tion, to  know  for  what  purpose  these  additional  troops  are 
wanted.  The  House  ought  not  to  commit  itself  on  a  question  of 
such  magnitude  without  detailed  information.  I  am  as  much 
opposed  to  raising  standing  armies  now  as  in  the  reign  of  terror. 
I  have  seen  too  much  of  the  corruptions  attendant  on  those  es- 
tablishments not  to  disclaim  all  share  in  the  creation  of  them. 


154  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  people  of  the  United  States  can  defend  themselves,  if  neces- 
sary, and  have  no  idea  of  resting  their  defence  on  mercenaries, 
picked  up  from  brothels  and  tippling  houses — pickpockets  who 
have  escaped  from  Newgate,  etc.,  and  sought  refuge  in  this 
asylum  of  oppressed  humanity.  This  resolution  contains  an  un- 
constitutional proposition,  and  the  standing  army  now  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States  is  maintained  in  the  very  teeth  of 
that  part  of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  no  money  for 
the  support  of  a  standing  army  should  be  appropriated  for  more 
than  two  years.  I  ask  again  what  is  the  object  of  the  army  now 
proposed  to  be  raised  ?  If  the  President  says  they  are  necessary 
for  the  protection  of  New  Orleans,  to  be  employed  against  the 
Indians,  or  to  repel  incursions  from  Canada  (although  this 
seems  not  to  be  much  thought  of),  I  shall  not  refuse  to  grant 
them.  I  know  not  how  gentlemen  calling  themselves  republi- 
cans can  advocate  such  a  war.  What  was  their  doctrine  in  1798- 
'9,  when  the  command  of  the  army — that  highest  of  all  possible 
trusts  in  any  government,  be  the  form  what  it  may — was  re- 
posed in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  of  his  Country,  the  sanctuary 
of  a  nation's  love,  the  only  hope  that  never  came  in  vain! 
When  other  worthies  of  the  Revolution — Hamilton,  Pinckney, 
and  the  younger  Washington — men  of  tried  patriotism,  of  ap- 
proved conduct  and  valor,  of  untarnished  honor,  held  subordi- 
nate command  under  him ;  Republicans  were  then  unwilling  to 
trust  a  standing  army  even  to  his  hands  who  had  given  proof 
that  he  was  above  all  human  temptation.  Where  now  is  the 
Revolutionary  hero  to  whom  you  are  about  to  confide  this  sacred 
trust?  To  whom  will  you  confide  the  charge  of  leading  the 
flower  of  our  youth  to  the  Heights  of  Abraham?  Will  you 
find  him  in  the  person  of  an  acquitted  felon  ? *  What ;  then  you 
were  unwilling  to  vote  an  army  where  such  men  as  had  been 
named  held  high  command!  when  Washington  himself  was  at 
the  head — did  you  then  show  such  reluctance,  feel  such  scruples ; 
and  are  you  now  nothing  loth,  fearless  of  every  consequence? 
Will  you  say  that  your  provocations  were  less  then  than  now? 
When  your  direct  commerce  was  interdicted — your  ambassadors 
hooted  with  derision  from  the  French  Court — tribute  demanded 
— actual  war  waged  upon  you! 

Those  who  opposed  the  army  then  were  indeed  denounced 
as  the  partisans  of  France;  as  the  same  men — some  of  them  at 
least — are  now  held  up  as  the  advocates  of  England ;  those  firm 
and  undeviating  Republicans  who  then  dared,  and  now  dare, 
to  cling  to  the  ark  of  the  Constitution,  to  defend  it  even  at  the 

General  James  Wilkinson,  tried  with  Aaron  Burr  for  treason. 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  i55 

expense  of  their  fame,  rather  than  surrender  themselves  to  the 
wild  projects  of  mad  ambition!  There  is  a  fatality  attending 
plenitude  of  power.  Soon  or  late  some  mania  seizes  upon  its 
possessors — they  fall  from  the  dizzy  height  through  the  giddi- 
ness of  their  own  heads.  Will  not  the  same  causes  produce  the 
same  effects  now  as  then?  Sir,  you  may  raise  this  army,  you 
may  build  up  this  vast  structure  of  patronage,  this  mighty  ap- 
paratus of  favoritism;  but — "lay  not  the  flattering  unction  to 
your  souls" — you  will  never  live  to  enjoy  the  succession.  You 
sign  your  political  death  warrant. 

An  insinuation  has  fallen  from  the  gentleman  from  Ten- 
nessee (Mr.  Grundy)  that  the  late  massacre  of  our  brethren  on 
the  Wabash  has  been  instigated  by  the  British  Government.  Has 
the  President  given  any  such  information?  has  the  gentleman 
received  any  such,  even  informally,  from  any  officer  of  this 
Government?  Is  it  so  believed  by  the  Administration?  I  have 
cause  to  think  the  contrary  to  be  the  fact ;  that  such  is  not  their 
opinion.  This  insinuation  is  of  the  grossest  kind — a  presump- 
tion the  most  rash,  the  most  unjustifiable.  Show  but  good 
ground  for  it,  I  will  give  up  the  question  at  the  threshold — I  am 
ready  to  march  to  Canada.  It  is  indeed  well  calculated  to  excite 
the  feelings  of  the  Western  people  particularly,  who  are  not 
quite  so  tenderly  attached  to  our  red  brethren  as  some  modern 
philosophers ;  but  it  is  destitute  of  any  foundation,  beyond  mere 
surmise  and  suspicion. 

This  war  of  conquest,  a  war  for  the  acquisition  of  territory 
and  subjects,  is  to  be  a  new  commentary  on  the  doctrine  that 
republics  are  destitute  of  ambition — that  they  are  addicted  to 
peace,  wedded  to  the  happiness  and  safety  of  the  great  body  of 
their  people.  But  it  seems  this  is  to  be  a  holiday  campaign — 
there  is  to  be  no  expense  of  blood,  or  treasure,  on  our  part — 
Canada  is  to  conquer  herself — she  is  to  be  subdued  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  fraternity.  The  people  of  that  country  are  first  to  be 
seduced  from  their  allegiance,  and  converted  into  traitors,  as 
preparatory  to  the  making  them  good  citizens.  Although  I  must 
acknowledge  that  some  of  our  flaming  patriots  were  thus  manu- 
factured, I  do  not  think  the  process  would  hold  good  with  a 
whole  community.  It  is  a  dangerous  experiment.  We  are  to 
succeed  in  the  French  mode  by  the  system  of  fraternization — all 
is  French;  but  how  dreadfully  it  might  be  retorted  on  the 
Southern  and  Western  slaveholding  States.  I  detest  this  subor- 
nation of  treason.  No — if  he  must  have  them,  let  them  fall  by 
the  valor  of  our  arms,  by  fair,  legitimate  conquest;  not  become 
the  victims  of  treacherous  seduction. 


156  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

I  am  not  surprised  at  the  war  spirit  which  is  manifesting  it- 
self in  gentlemen  from  the  South.  In  the  year  1805- '6,  in  a 
struggle  for  the  carrying  trade  of  belligerent  colonial  produce, 
this  country  had  been  most  unwisely  brought  into  collision  with 
the  great  powers  of  Europe.  By  a  series  of  most  impolitic  and 
ruinous  measures,1  utterly  incomprehensible  to  every  rational, 
sober-minded  man,  the  Southern  planters,  by  their  own  votes, 
had  succeeded  in  knocking  down  the  price  of  cotton  to  seven 
cents,  and  of  tobacco  (a  few  choice  crops  excepted)  to  nothing 
— and  in  raising  the  price  of  blankets  (of  which  a  few  would 
not  be  amiss  in  a  Canadian  campaign),  coarse  woolens,  and 
every  article  of  first  necessity,  three  or  four  hundred  per  cent. 
And  now  that,  by  our  own  acts,  we  have  brought  ourselves  into 
this  unprecedented  condition,  we  must  get  out  of  it  in  any  way 
but  by  an  acknowledgment  of  our  own  want  of  wisdom  and  fore- 
cast. But  is  war  the  true  remedy?  "Who  will  profit  by  it? 
Speculators — a  few  lucky  merchants,  who  draw  prizes  in  the 
lottery — commissaries  and  contractors.  Who  must  suffer  by  it? 
The  people.  It  is  their  blood,  their  taxes,  that  must  flow  to 
support  it. 

I  am  gratified  to  find  gentlemen  acknowledging  the  demoral- 
izing and  destructive  consequences  of  the  non-importation  law 
— confessing  the  truth  of  all  that  its  opponents  foretold  when 
it  was  enacted.  And  will  you  plunge  yourselves  in  war  because 
you  have  passed  a  foolish  and  ruinous  law,  and  are  ashamed  to 
repeal  it  ?  "  But  our  good  friend  the  French  Emperor  stands  in 
the  way  of  its  repeal/ '  and  as  we  cannot  go  too  far  in  making 
sacrifices  to  him,  who  has  given  such  demonstration  of  his  love 
for  the  Americans,  we  must,  in  point  of  fact,  become  parties  to 
his  war.  "Who  can  be  so  cruel  as  to  refuse  him  this  favor?" 
My  imagination  shrinks  from  the  miseries  of  such  a  connection. 
I  call  upon  the  House  to  reflect  whether  they  are  not  about  to 
abandon  all  reclamation  for  the  unparalleled  outrages,  "insults 
and  injuries,,  of  the  French  Government,  to  give  up  our  claim 
for  plundered  millions ;  and  I  ask  what  reparation  or  atonement 
they  can  expect  to  obtain  in  hours  of  future  dalliance,  after 
they  have  made  a  tender  of  their  person  to  this  great  deflowerer 
of  the  virginity  of  republics.  We  have  by  our  own  wise  (he 
would  not  say  wise-acre)  measures,  so  increased  the  trade  and 
wealth  of  Montreal  and  Quebec  that  at  last  we  begin  to  cast  a 
wishful  eye  at  Canada.  Having  done  so  much  toward  its  im- 
provement by  the  exercise  of  "our  restrictive  energies,"  we  be- 
gin to  think  the  laborer  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  to  put  in  claim 

1  Non-importation,  non-intercourse,  embargo. 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  157 

for  our  portion.  Suppose  it  ours,  are  we  any  nearer  to  our 
point?  As  his  minister  said  to  the  King  of  Epirus,  ''may  we 
not  as  well  take  our  bottle  of  wine  before  as  after  this  exploit  ? ' ' 
Go !  march  to  Canada !  leave  the  broad  bosom  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  her  hundred  tributary  rivers — the  whole  line  of  seacoast 
from  Machias  to  St.  Mary 's — unprotected !  You  have  taken  Que- 
bec— have  you  conquered  England  ?  Will  you  seek  for  the  deep 
foundations  of  her  power  in  the  frozen  deserts  of  Labrador? 

• ■  Her  march  is  on  the  mountain  wave, 
Her  home  is  on  the  deep ! ' ' 

Will  you  call  upon  her  to  leave  your  ports  and  harbors  un- 
touched, only  just  till  you  can  return  from  Canada  to  defend 
them?  The  coast  is  to  be  left  defenceless,  while  men  of  the 
interior  are  reveling  in  conquest  and  spoil.  But  grant  for  a 
moment,  for  mere  argument's  sake,  that  in  Canada  you  touched 
the  sinews  of  her  strength,  instead  of  removing  a  clog  upon  her 
resources — an  encumbrance,  but  one  which,  from  a  spirit  of 
honor,  she  will  vigorously  defend.  In  what  situation  would  you 
then  place  some  of  the  best  men  of  the  nation?  As  Chatham 
and  Burke,  and  the  whole  band  of  her  patriots,  prayed  for  her 
defeat  in  1776,  so  must  some  of  the  truest  friends  to  their  coun- 
try deprecate  the  success  of  our  arms  against  the  only  power 
that  holds  in  check  the  arch-enemy  of  mankind. 

Our  people  will  not  submit  to  be  taxed  for  this  war  of  con- 
quest and  dominion.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  is 
not  calculated  to  wage  offensive  foreign  war — it  was  instituted 
for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare;  and  whosoever 
should  embark  in  a  war  of  offence  would  put  it  to  a  test  which 
it  was  by  no  means  calculated  to  endure.  I  am  unwilling  to 
embark  in  common  cause  with  France  and  be  dragged  at  the 
wheels  of  the  car  of  some  Burr  or  Bonaparte. 

What  is  the  situation  of  the  slaveholding  States?  During 
the  war  of  the  Revolution,  so  fixed  were  the  habits  of  subordina- 
tion of  the  blacks  that  when  the  whole  Southern  country  was 
overrun  by  the  enemy,  who  invited  them  to  desert,  no  fear  was 
ever  entertained  of  an  insurrection  of  the  slaves.  During  the 
war  of  seven  years,  with  our  country  in  possession  of  the  enemy, 
no  such  danger  was  ever  apprehended.  But  should  we  there- 
fore be  unobservant  spectators  of  the  progress  of  society  within 
the  last  twenty  years — of  the  silent  and  powerful  change 
wrought  by  time  and  chance  upon  its  composition  and  temper? 
When  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  of  abomination  were 
broken  up  even  the  poor  slaves  had  not  escape^  the  general 


158  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

deluge.  The  French  Revolution  had  polluted  even  them.  Nay, 
there  had  not  been  wanting  men  in  that  House,  witness  their 
legislative  Legendre,  the  butcher  who  once  held  a  seat  there,  to 
preach  upon  that  floor  these  imprescriptible  rights  to  a  crowded 
audience  of  blacks  in  the  galleries — teaching  them  that  they  are 
equal  to  their  masters;  in  other  words,  advising  them  to  cut 
their  throats.  Similar  doctrines  were  disseminated  by  peddlers 
from  New  England  and  elsewhere,  throughout  the  Southern 
country — and  masters  have  been  found  so  infatuated  as  by  their 
lives  and  conversation,  by  a  general  contempt  of  order,  morality, 
and  religion,  unthinkingly  to  cherish  these  seeds  of  self-destruc- 
tion to  them  and  their  families.  What  was  the  consequence? 
Within  the  last  ten  years  repeated  alarms  of  insurrection  among 
the  slaves — some  of  them  awful  indeed.  From  the  spreading 
of  this  infernal  doctrine  the  whole  Southern  country  has  been 
thrown  into  a  state  of  insecurity.  Men  dead  to  the  operation  of 
moral  causes  have  taken  away  from  the  poor  slave  his  habits  of 
loyalty  and  obedience  to  his  master,  which  lightened  his  servi- 
tude by  a  double  operation ;  beguiling  his  own  cares  and  disarm- 
ing his  master 's  suspicions  and  severity ;  and  now,  like  true  em- 
pirics in  politics,  you  are  called  upon  to  trust  to  the  mere  physi- 
cal strength  of  the  fetter  which  holds  him  in  bondage.  You 
have  deprived  him  of  all  moral  restraint,  you  have  tempted  him 
to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  just  enough  to  per- 
fect him  in  wickedness ;  you  have  opened  his  eyes  to  his  naked- 
ness ;  you  have  armed  his  nature  against  the  hand  that  has  fed, 
that  has  clothed  him,  that  has  cherished  him  in  sickness;  that 
hand  which,  before  he  became  a  pupil  of  your  school,  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  press  with  respectful  affection.  You  have 
done  all  this — and  then  show  him  the  gibbet  and  the  wheel, 
as  incentives  to  a  sullen,  repugnant  obedience.  God  forbid,  sir, 
that  the  Southern  States  should  ever  see  an  enemy  on  their 
shores,  with  these  infernal  principles  of  French  fraternity  in 
the  van !  While  talking  of  taking  Canada,  some  of  us  are  shud- 
dering for  our  own  safety  at  home.  The  night-bell  never  tolls 
for  fire  in  Richmond  that  the  mother  does  not  hug  her  infant 
more  closely  to  her  bosom.  I  have  been  a  witness  of  some  of  the 
alarms  in  the  capital  of  Virginia. 

Strange!  that  we  should  have  no  objection  to  any  people  or 
government,  civilized  or  savage,  in  the  whole  world  other  than 
the  British.  The  great  Autocrat  of  all  the  Russias  receives  the 
homage  of  our  high  consideration.  The  Dey  of  Algiers  and  his 
Divan  of  Pirates  are  very  civil,  good  sort  of  people,  with  whom 
we  find  no  difficulty  in  maintaining  the  relations  of  peace  and 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  159 

amity — "Turks,  Jews,  and  Infidels";  Mellimelli,  or  the  Little 
Turtle;  barbarians  and  savages  of  every  clime  and  color  are 
welcome  to  our  arms.  With  chiefs  of  banditti,  negro  or  mu- 
latto, we  can  treat  and  can  trade.  Name,  however,  but  Eng- 
land, and  all  our  antipathies  are  up  in  arms  against  her.  Against 
whom  ?  Against  those  whose  blood  runs  in  our  veins ;  in  common 
with  whom  we  claim  Shakespeare,  and  Newton,  and  Chatham 
for  our  countrymen ;  whose  form  of  government  is  the  freest  on 
earth,  our  own  only  excepted ;  from  whom  every  valuable  prin- 
ciple of  our  own  institutions  has  been  borrowed — representation, 
jury  trial,  voting  the  supplies,  writ  of  habeas  corpus — our  whole 
civil  and  criminal  jurisprudence — against  our  fellow  Protestants, 
identified  in  blood,  in  language,  in  religion  with  ourselves.  In 
what  school  did  the  worthies  of  our  land,  the  Washingtons, 
Henrys,  Hancocks,  Franklins,  Rutledges  of  America,  learn  those 
principles  of  civil  liberty  which  were  so  nobly  asserted  by  their 
wisdom  and  valor  ?  And  American  resistance  to  British  usurpa- 
tion has  not  been  more  Warmly  cherished  by  these  great  men 
and  their  compatriots;  not  more  by  Washington,  Hancock,  and 
Henry,  than  by  Chatham  and  his  illustrious  associates  in  the 
British  Parliament.  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  the 
heart  of  the  English  people  was  with  us.  It  was  a  selfish  and 
corrupt  ministry,  and  their  servile  tools,  to  whom  we  were  not 
more  opposed  than  they  were.  I  trust  that  none  such  may  ever 
exist  among  us — for  tools  will  never  be  wanting  to  subserve  the 
purposes,  however  ruinous  or  wicked,  of  kings  and  ministers  of 
state. 

I  acknowledge  the  influence  of  a  Shakespeare  and  Milton 
upon  my  imagination,  of  a  Locke  upon  my  understanding,  of  a 
Sidney  upon  my  political  principles,  of  a  Chatham  upon  quali- 
ties which,  would  to  God!  I  possessed  in  common  with  that  il- 
lustrious man — of  a  Tillotson,  a  Sherlock,  and  a  Porteus,  upon 
my  religion.  This  is  a  British  influence  which  I  could  never 
shake  off.  I  allow  much  to  the  just  and  honest  prejudices 
growing  out  of  the  Revolution.  But  by  whom  have  they  been 
suppressed  when  they  ran  counter  to  the  interests  of  his  coun- 
try? By  Washington.  By  whom,  would  you  listen  to  them, 
are  they  most  keenly  felt?  By  felons  escaped  from  the  jails  of 
Paris,  Newgate,  and  Kilmainham,  since  the  breaking  out  of  the 
French  Revolution — who,  in  this  abused  and  insulted  country, 
have  set  up  for  political  teachers,  and  whose  disciples  give  no 
other  proof  of  their  progress  in  republicanism  except  a  blind 
devotion  to  the  most  ruthless  military  despotism  that  the  world 
ever  saw.    These  are  the  patriots  who  scruple  not  to  brand  with 


160  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  epithet  of  Tory  the  men  (looking  toward  the  seat  of  Col. 
Stuart)  by  whose  blood  your  liberties  have  been  cemented. 
These  are  they  who  hold  in  so  keen  remembrance  the  outrages 
of  the  British  armies,  from  which  many  of  them  were  deserters. 
Ask  these  self-styled  patriots  where  they  were  during  the  Amer- 
ican war  (for  they  are  for  the  most  part  old  enough  to  have 
borne  arms),  and  you  strike  them  dumb — their  lips  are  closed 
in  eternal  silence.  If  it  were  allowable  to  entertain  partialities, 
every  consideration  of  blood,  language,  religion,  and  interest 
would  incline  us  toward  England ;  and,  yet,  shall  they  be  alone 
extended  to  France  and  her  ruler,  whom  we  are  bound  to  believe 
a  chastening  God  suffers  as  the  scourge  of  a  guilty  world !  On 
all  other  nations  he  tramples — he  holds  them  in  contempt — Eng- 
land alone  he  hates ;  he  would,  but  he  cannot,  despise  her — fear 
cannot  despise.  And  shall  we  disparage  our  ancestors? — shall 
we  bastardize  ourselves  by  placing  them  even  below  the  brigades 
of  St.  Domingo 1  with  whom  Mr.  Adams  had  negotiated  a  sort  of 
treaty,  for  which  he  ought  to  have  been  and  would  have  been 
impeached  if  the  people  had  not  previously  passed  sentence  of 
disqualification  for  their  service  upon  him.  This  antipathy  to 
all  that  is  English  must  be  French. 

The  outrages  and  injuries  of  England,  bred  up  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Revolution,  I  myself  never  palliate,  much  less  de- 
fend. I  well  remember  flying  with  my  mother  and  her  newr 
born  child  from  Arnold  and  Phillips — and  how  they  had  been 
driven  by  Tarleton  and  other  British  pandours  from  pillar  to 
post,  while  her  husband  was  fighting  the  battles  of  his  country. 
The  impression  is  indelible  on  my  memory — and  yet  (like  my 
worthy  old  neighbor,  who  added  seven  buckshot  to  every  cart- 
ridge at  the  battle  of  Guilford,  and  drew  a  fine  sight  at  his 
man)  I  must  be  content  to  be  called  a  Tory  by  a  patriot  of  the 
last  importation.  Let  us  not  get  rid  of  one  evil  (supposing  it  to 
be  possible)  at  the  expense  of  a  greater — mutatis  mutandis.1 
Suppose  France  in  possession  of  the  British  naval  power — and 
to  her  the  trident  must  pass  should  England  be  unable  to  wield 
it — what  would  be  your  condition?  What  would  be  the  situa- 
tion of  your  seaports  and  their  seafaring  inhabitants?  Ask 
Hamburg,  Lubec.  Ask  Savannah.  What,  sir !  when  their  priva- 
teers are  pent  up  in  our  harbors  by  the  British  bulldogs,  when 
they  receive  at  our  hands  every  rite  of  hospitality,  from  which 
their  enemy  is  excluded,  when  they  capture  within  our  own 
waters,  interdicted  to  British  armed  ships,  American  vessels; 
when  such  is  their  deportment  toward  you,  under  such  circum- 

1"The  necessary  changes  having  been  made." 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  161 

stances,  what  could  you  expect  if  they  were  the  uncontrolled 
lords  of  the  ocean?  Had  those  privateers  at  Savannah  borne 
British  commissions,  or  had  your  shipments  of  cotton,  tobacco, 
ashes,  and  what  not  to  London  and  Liverpool  been  confiscated 
and  the  proceeds  poured  into  the  English  exchequer — my  life 
upon  it ! — you  would  never  have  listened  to  any  miserable  wire- 
drawn distinctions  between  "orders  and  decrees  affecting  our 
neutral  rights/ '  and  "municipal  decrees"  confiscating  in  mass 
your  whole  property.  You  would  have  had  instant  war!  The 
whole  land  would  have  blazed  out  in  war. 

And  shall  republicans  become  the  instruments  of  him  who 
has  effaced  the  title  of  Attila  to  the  "Scourge  of  God!"  Yet 
even  Attila,  in  the  fallen  fortunes  of  civilization,  had,  no  doubt, 
his  advocates,  his  tools,  his  minions,  his  parasites  in  the  very 
countries  that  he  overran — sons  of  that  soil  whereon  his  horse 
had  trod;  where  grass  could  never  after  grow. 

I  beseech  the  House,  before  they  run  their  heads  against  this 
post  Quebec,  to  count  the  cost.  My  word  for  it,  Virginia  plant- 
ers will  not  be  taxed  to  support  such  a  war — a  war  which  must 
aggravate  their  present  distresses;  in  which  they  have  not  the 
remotest  interest.  Where  is  the  Montgomery,  or  even  the 
Arnold,  or  the  Burr  who  is  to  march  to  Point  Levi? 

I  call  upon  those  professing  to  be  republicans  to  make  good 
the  promises  held  out  by  their  republican  predecessors  when 
they  came  into  power — promises  which,  for  years  afterwards, 
they  had  honestly,  faithfully  fulfilled.  We  had  vaunted  of 
paying  off  the  national  debt,  of  retrenching  useless  establish- 
ments; and  yet  had  now  become  as  infatuated  with  standing 
armies,  loans,  taxes,  navies,  and  war  as  ever  were  the  Essex 
Junto.     What  republicanism  is  this? 

Richard  M.  Johnson. — For  the  first  time  since  my  entrance 
into  this  body  there  now  seems  to  be  but  one  opinion  with  a 
great  majority — that  with  Great  Britain  war  is  inevitable ;  that 
the  hopes  of  the  sanguine  as  to  a  returning  sense  of  British 
justice  have  expired ;  that  the  prophecies  of  the  discerning  have 
failed;  and,  that  her  infernal  system  has  driven  us  to  the  brink 
of  a  second  revolution  as  important  as  the  first.  Upon  the 
Wabash,  through  the  influence  of  British  agents,  and  within  our 
territorial  sea  by  the  British  navy,  the  war  has  already  com- 
menced. Thus,  the  folly,  the  power,  and  the  tyranny  of  Great 
Britain  have  taken  from  us  the  last  alternative  of  longer  for- 
bearance. 

We  must  now  oppose  the  farther  encroachments  of  Great 
Britain  by  war,  or  formally  annul  the  Declaration  of  our  Inde- 


162  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

pendence  and  acknowledge  ourselves  her  devoted  colonies.  The 
people  whom  I  represent  will  not  hesitate  which  of  the  two 
courses  to  choose;  and,  if  we  are  involved  in  war  to  maintain 
our  dearest  rights  and  to  preserve  our  independence,  I  pledge 
myself  to  this  House  and  my  constituents  to  this  nation,  that 
they  will  not  be  wanting  in  valor  nor  in  their  proportion  of 
men  and  money  to  prosecute  the  war  with  effect.  Before  we 
relinquish  the  conflict  I  wish  to  see  Great  Britain  renounce  the 
piratical  system  of  paper  blockade;  to  liberate  our  captured^ 
seamen  on  board  her  ships  of  war;  relinquish  the  practice  of 
impressment  on  board  our  merchant  vessels;  to  repeal  her 
orders  in  Council;  and  cease  in  every  other  respect  to  violate 
our  neutral  rights;  to  treat  us  as  an  independent  people.  The 
gentleman  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Randolph]  has  objected  to  the 
destination  of  this  auxiliary  force — the  occupation  of  the  Can- 
adas  and  the  other  British  possessions  upon  our  borders  where 
our  laws  are  violated,  the  Indians  stimulated  to  murder  our 
citizens,  and  where  there  is  a  British  monopoly  of  the  peltry  and 
fur  trade.  I  should  not  wish  to  extend  the  boundary  of  the 
United  States  by  war  if  Great  Britain  would  leave  us  to  the 
quiet  enjoyment  of  independence;  but,  considering  her  deadly 
and  implacable  enmity,  and  her  continued  hostility,  I  shall  never 
die  contented  until  I  see  her  expulsion  from  North  America,  and 
her  territories  incorporated  with  the  United  States. 

The  waters  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Mississippi  inter- 
lock and  the  great  Disposer  of  Human  Events  intended  those 
two  rivers  should  belong  to  the  same  people. 

But  it  has  been  denied  that  British  influence  had  any  agency 
in  the  late  dreadful  conflict  and  massacre  upon  the  Wabash ; 
and  this  is  said  to  vindicate  the  British  nation  from  so  foul  a 
charge.  Sir,  look  to  the  book  of  the  Revolution.  See  the  Indian 
savages  in  Burgoyne's  army  urged  on  every  occasion  to  use  the 
scalping-knife  and  tomahawk — not  in  battle,  but  against  old 
men  and  women,  and  children,  in  the  night,  when  they  were 
taught  to  believe  an  omniscient  eye  could  not  see  their  guilty 
deeds;  and,  thus  hardened  in  iniquity,  they  perpetrated  the 
same  deeds  by  the  light  of  the  sun  when  no  arm  was  found  to 
oppose  or  protect.  And  when  this  crying  sin  was  opposed  by 
Lord  Chatham  in  the  House  of  Lords,1  the  employment  of  these 
Indians  was  justified  by  a  speech  from  one  of  the  ministry. 
Thus  we  see  how  the  principles  of  honor,  of  humanity,  of  Chris- 
tianity were  violated  and  justified  in  the  face  of  the  world. 
Therefore  I  can  have  no  doubt  of  the  influence  of  British  agents 

1  See  Volume  I,  page  217. 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  163 

in  keping  up  Indian  hostility  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
independent  of  the  strong  proofs  on  this  occasion;  and  I  hope 
it  will  not  be  pretended  that  these  agents  are  too  moral  or  too 
religious  to  do  the  infamous  deed.  So  much  for  the  expulsion  of 
Great  Britain  from  her  dominions  in  North  America  and  their 
incorporation  into  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  says  we  are  identified  with 
the  British  in  religion,  in  blood,  in  language,  and  deeply  la- 
ments our  hatred  to  that  country,  who  can  boast  of  so  many 
illustrious  characters.  This  deep-rooted  enmity  to  Great  Britain 
arises  from  her  insidious  policy,  the  offspring  of  her  perfidious 
conduct  toward  the  United  States.  Her  disposition  is  un-  I 
friendly;  her  enmity  is  implacable;  she  sickens  at  our  prosperity/ 
and  happiness.  If  obligations  of  friendship  do  exist,  why  does 
Great  Britain  rend  those  ties  asunder  and  open  the  bleeding 
wounds  of  former  conflicts?  Or  does  the  obligation  of  friend- 
ship exist  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  alone  f  I  have  never 
thought  that  the  ties  of  religion,  of  blood,  of  language,  and  of 
commerce  would  justify  or  sanctify  insult  and  injury — on  the 
contrary,  that  a  premeditated  wrong  from  the  hand  of  a  friend 
created  more  sensibility  and  deserved  the  greater  chastisement 
and  the  higher  execration.  What  would  you  think  of  a  man 
to  whom  you  were  bound  by  the  most  sacred  ties  who  would 
plunder  you  of  your  substance,  aim  a  deadly  blow  at  your  honor, 
and,  in  the  hour  of  confidence,  endeavor  to  bury  a  dagger  in 
your  bosom?  Would  you,  sir,  proclaim  to  the  world  your 
affection  for  this  miscreant  of  society  after  this  conduct,  and 
endeavor  to  interest  your  audience  with  the  ties  of  kindred  that 
bound  you  to  each  other?  So  let  it  be  with  nations,  and  there 
will  be  neither  surprise  nor  lamentation  that  we  execrate  a  gov- 
ernment so  hostile  to  our  independence — for  it  is  from  the  gov- 
ernment that  we  meet  with  such  multiplied  injury,  and  to  that 
object  is  our  hatred  directed.  As  to  individuals  of  merit, 
whether  British  or  French,  I  presume  no  person  would  accuse 
the  people  of  the  United  States  of  such  hatred  to  them,  or  of 
despising  individuals  who  might  not  be  instrumental  in  the 
maritime  despotism  which  we  feel;  and  this  accounts  for  the 
veneration  we  have  for  Sidney  and  Russell,  statesmen  of  whom 
the  gentleman  has  spoken;  they  are  fatal  examples  why  we 
should  love  the  British  Government.  The  records  of  that  gov- 
ernment are  now  stained  with  the  blood  of  these  martyrs  in  free- 
dom 's  cause,  as  vilely  as  with  the  blood  of  American  citizens; 
and  certainly  we  shall  not  called  upon  to  love  equally  the 
murderer  and  the  victim.    For  God's  sake  let  us  not  again  be 


164  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

told  of  the  ties  of  religion,  of  laws,  of  blood,  and  of  customs 
which  bind  the  two  nations  together,  with  a  view  to  extort  our 
love  for  the  English  Government,  and,  more  especially,  when 
the  same  gentleman  has  acknowledged  that  we  have  ample  cause 
of  war  against  that  nation — let  us  not  be  told  of  the  freedom 
of  that  corrupt  government  whose  hands  are  washed  alike  in  the 
blood  of  her  own  illustrious  statesmen  for  a  manly  opposition 
to  tyranny  and  the  citizens  of  every  other  clime.  But  I  would 
inquire  into  this  love  for  the  British  Government  and  British 
institutions,  in  the  gross,  without  any  discrimination.  Why  love 
her  rulers?  Why  kiss  the  rod  of  iron  which  inflicts  the  stripes 
without  a  cause?  When  all  admit  we  have  just  cause  of  war 
such  attachments  are  dangerous  and  encourage  encroachment. 
I  will  venture  to  say  that  our  hatred  of  the  British  Government 
is  not  commensurate  with  her  depredations  and  her  outrages  on 
our  rights,  or  we  should  have  waged  a  deadly  war  against  her 
many  years  past.  The  subject  of  foreign  attachments  and 
British  hatred  has  been  examined  at  considerable  length.  I  did 
not  intend  to  begin  that  discussion,  but  I  will  pursue  it,  and, 
though  I  make  no  charge  of  British  attachments,  I  will,  at  all 
times,  at  every  hazard,  defend  the  Administration  and  the  Re- 
publican party  against  the  charge  of  foreign  partialities — 
French  or  Spanish,  or  any  other  kind — when  applied  to  the 
measures  of  our  Government.  This  foreign  influence  is  a  dan- 
gerous enemy;  we  should  destroy  the  means  of  its  circulation 
among  us — like  the  fatal  tunic,  it  destroys  where  it  touches. 
It  is  insidious,  invisible,  and  takes  advantage  of  the  most  un- 
suspecting hours  of  social  intercourse.  I  would  not  deny  the 
good  will  of  France  nor  of  Great  Britain  to  have  an  undue  in- 
fluence among  us.  But  Great  Britain  alone  has  the  means  of 
this  influence  to  an  extent  dangerous  to  the  United  States. 
It  has  been  said  that  Great  Britain  was  fighting  the  battles  of 
the  world — that  she  stands  against  universal  dominion  threat- 
ened by  the  arch-fiend  of  mankind.  I  should  be  sorry  if  our 
independence  depended  upon  the  power  of  Great  Britain.  If, 
however,  she  would  act  the  part  of  a  friendly  power  toward 
the  United  States  I  should  never  wish  to  deprive  her  of  power, 
of  wealth,  of  honor,  of  prosperity.  But,  if  her  energies  are  to 
be  directed  against  the  liberties  of  this  free  and  happy  people, 
against  my  native  country,  I  should  not  drop  a  tear  if  the  fast- 
anchored  isle  would  sink  into  the  waves,  provided  the  innocent 
inhabitants  could  escape  the  deluge  and  find  an  asylum  in  a 
more  favorable  soil. 

And  as  to  the  power  of  France,  I  fear  it  as  little  as  any 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  165 

other  power;  I  would  oppose  her  aggressions  under  any  cir- 
cumstances as  soon  as  I  would  British  outrages. 

The  ties  of  religion,  of  language,  of  blood,  as  it  regards 
Great  Britain,  are  dangerous  ties  to  this  country,  with  her  pres- 
ent hostile  disposition — instead  of  pledges  of  friendship  they 
are  used  to  paralyze  the  strength  of  the  United  States  in  rela- 
tion to  her  aggressions.  There  are  other  ties  equally  efficacious. 
The  number  of  her  commercial  traders  within  our  limits,  her 
agents,  etc.,  the  vast  British  capital  employed  in  our  commerce 
and  our  moneyed  institutions,  connected  with  her  language,  an- 
cestry, customs,  habits,  and  laws.  These  are  formidable  means 
for  estranging  the  affections  of  many  from  our  republican  insti- 
tutions, and  producing  partialities  for  Great  Britain. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  called  the  military  regular 
forces  mercenaries.  If,  by  this  appellation,  any  reproach  or 
degradation  is  intended,  its  justice  and  propriety  is  denied.  In 
times  like  the  present,  when  dangers  thicken  upon  us,  at  the 
moment  when  we  are  compelled  by  most  wanton  tyranny  upon 
the  high  seas,  and  upon  land  may  be  added,  to  abandon  our 
peaceful  habits  for  the  din  of  arms,  officers  and  soldiers  in  this 
country  are  governed  by  the  noble  feelings  of  patriotism  and  of 
valor.  The  history  of  the  world  may  be  ransacked;  other 
nations  may  be  brought  in  review  before  us,  and  examples  of 
greater  heroism  cannot  be  quoted  than  shall  be  performed  in 
battle  by  our  officers  and  soldiers,  military  and  naval  and 
marine.  The  deeds  of  their  ancestors  would  be  before  them; 
glory  would  animate  their  bosoms,  and  love  of  country  would 
nerve  the  heart  to  deeds  of  mighty  fame.  If,  therefore,  there 
should  not  be  a  diminution  of  respect  for  those  who  entertain  an 
opinion  so  degrading  to  our  army,  it  should  at  least  be  under- 
stood that  such  opinions  do  not  lessen  the  confidence  due  to 
those  who  faithfully  serve  their  country,  and  who  would  lay 
down  their  lives  for  it.  This  reflection  brings  to  memory  the 
late  memorable  conflict  upon  the  Wabash.  Governor  Harrison 
pitched  his  tents  near  the  Prophet's  town;  and,  although  this 
fanatic  and  his  followers  collected,  and  the  American  forces 
were  anxious  to  finish  the  work  by  an  open  and  daylight  engage- 
ment, if  there  was  a  necessity  to  resort  to  arms,  their  impetuous 
valor  was  easily  stayed,  when  they  were  informed  that  the 
white  flag  of  peace  was  to  be  hoisted  next  morning,  and  the 
effusion  of  blood  was  to  be  spared.  But  in  the  silent  watches 
of  the  night,  relieved  from  the  fatigues  of  valor,  and  slumber- 
ing under  the  perfidious  promises  of  the  savages,  who  were 
infuriated  and  made  drunk  by  British  traders,  dreaming  of 


166  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  tender  smile  of  a  mother,  and  the  fond  embraces  of  affec- 
tionate wives,  and  of  prattling  children  upon  their  knees,  on 
their  return  from  the  fatigues  of  a  campaign! — the  destroyers 
came  with  the  silent  instruments  of  death — the  war-club,  the 
scalping-knife,  the  tomahawk,  and  the  bow  and  arrow;  with 
these  they  penetrate  into  the  heart  of  our  forces — they  enter 
the  tents  of  our  officers — many  close  their  eyes  in  death — it  was 
a  trying  moment  for  the  rest  of  our  heroes,  but  they  were  equal 
to  the  dreadful  occasion.  The  American  forces  flew  to  arms; 
they  rallied  at  the  voice  of  their  officers,  and  soon  checked  the 
work  of  death.  The  savages  were  successively  and  successfully 
charged  and  driven  until  daylight,  when  they  disappeared  like 
the  mist  of  morning.  In  this  dreadful  conflict  many  were  killed 
and  wounded  on  both  sides;  and  the  volunteers  and  the  regi- 
ment under  Colonel  Boyd  acted  and  fought  with  equal  bravery 
and  to  their  immortal  honor.  The  volunteers  from  Kentucky 
were  men  of  valor  and  worth — young  men  of  hopeful  prospects, 
and  married  men  of  reputation  and  intelligence,  governed  by  no 
mercenary  views — honor  prompted  them  to  serve  their  country. 
Some  of  these  fallen  heroes  were  my  acquaintances,  my  friends : 
one  not  the  least  conspicuous  lived  in  my  district — Colonel 
Owens;  Colonel  Daviess,  a  neighbor.  You,  Mr.  Speaker,  know 
the  worth  of  some  of  these  men ;  and  I  regret  that  you  are  not 
in  my  place  to  speak  their  praise.  So  long  as  the  records  of 
this  transaction  remain,  the  9th  of  November  will  not  be 
forgotten,  and  time  shall  only  brighten  the  fame  of  the  deeds  of 
our  army,  and  a  tear  shall  be  shed  for  those  who  have  fallen. 
Robert  Wright. — I,  sir,  shall  take  the  liberty  of  varying 
the  question  from  the  honorable  member  from  Virginia  [Mr. 
Randolph]  who,  yesterday,  considered  it  a  question  of  peace 
or  war.  I  shall  consider  it  as  a  question  of  war  or  submission, 
dire  alternatives,  of  which,  however,  I  trust  no  honest  American 
can  hesitate  in  choosing  when  the  question  is  correctly  stated 
and  distinctly  understood.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  con- 
tends that  it  is  a  dispute  about  the  carrying  trade,  brought  on 
us  by  the  cupidity  of  the  American  merchants,  in  which  the 
farmer  and  planter  have  little  interest ;  that  he  will  not  consent 
to  tax  his  constituents  to  carry  on  a  war  for  it ;  that  the  enemy 
is  invulnerable  on  the  "mountain  wave,"  the  element  of  our 
wrongs,  but  should  they  violate  the  "natale  solum"1  he  would 
point  all  the  energies  of  the  nation  and  avenge  the  wrong.  Was 
that  gentleman  stricken  on  the  nose  by  a  man  so  tall  that  he 
could  not  reach  his  nose,  I  strongly  incline  to  think  his  manly 

1  "Native  soil. " 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  167 

pride  would  not  permit  him  to  decline  the  conflict.  Sir,  the 
honorable  member  is  incorrect  in  his  premises,  and,  of  course, 
in  his  conclusions.  I  will  endeavor  to  convince  him  of  this,  and 
shall  be  gratified  if  I  can  enlist  his  talents  on  the  side  of  a 
bleeding  country.  Sir,  the  violations  of  the  commercial  rights 
of  which  we  complain  do  not  only  embrace  the  carrying  trade, 
properly  so  called,  but  also  the  carrying  of  the  products  of 
our  own  soil,  the  fruits  of  our  own  industry;  these,  although 
injurious  only  to  our  property,  are  just  causes  of  war.  But,  sir, 
the  impressment  of  our  native  seamen  is  a  stroke  at  the  vitals 
of  liberty  itself,  and,  although  it  does  not  touch  the  "natale 
solum,"  yet  it  enslaves  the  "nativos  filios" — the  native  sons  of 
America ;  and,  in  the  ratio  that  liberty  is  preferable  to  property, 
ought  to  enlist  the  patriotic  feelings  of  that  honorable  member 
and  make  his  bosom  burn  with  that  holy  fire  that  inspired  the 
patriots  of  the  Revolution. 

Sir,  the  carrying  trade — by  which  I  mean  the  carrying  of 
articles,  the  growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of  a  foreign  clime 
— except  articles  contraband  of  war — is  as  much  the  right  of  the 
American  people  as  the  carrying  of  the  products  of  their  own 
soil,  and  is  not  only  secured  by  the  law  of  nations,  but  by  the 
positive  provisions  of  the  British  treaty.  To  us,  sir,  it  is  an  all- 
important  right.  We  import  from  the  West  Indies,  annually, 
property  to  the  amount  of  forty  millions  of  dollars,  for  which 
we  pay  in  the  products  of  our  own  soil ;  of  this,  ten  millions  are 
consumed  in  the  United  States  and  the  surplus  thirty  millions 
are  exported  to  foreign  countries,  on  which  the  American  mer- 
chant pays  three  per  cent,  on  the  duties  to  the  United  States, 
obtains  the  profits  on  the  freight  of  thirty  millions  of  dollars, 
and  furnishes  a  market  for  American  productions  to  the  same 
amount. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  declared  that, 
if  he  could  believe  that  the  late  massacre  of  the  troops  in  the 
attack  on  Governor  Harrison  by  the  Indians  under  the  Prophet 
was  the  effect  of  British  agency  he  would  unite  with  us,  heart 
and  hand,  and  personally  assist  to  avenge  the  bloody  deed.  I 
feel  a  confidence  that,  if  the  gentleman  will  attend  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  this  case  and  take  a  retrospective  view  of  the 
conduct  of  the  British  Government,  he  will  feel  no  doubt  of 
the  fact. 

At  the  late  great  council  with  Governor  Harrison  the  chiefs 
of  many  tribes  were  convened,  all  of  whom,  except  Tecumseh, 
the  Prophet's  brother,  in  their  speeches  avowed  their  friendly 
dispositions  and  their  devotion  to  peace  with  the  United  States. 


168  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Tecumseh,  who,  with  a  number  of  his  tribe,  came  from  Fort 
Maiden  in  Canada,  declared  his  hostile  intentions  against  the 
United  States,  left  the  council  with  that  avowed  intention,  and 
returned  again  to  Fort  Maiden.  Shortly  after  this  the  Shaw- 
anees  assembled  a  large  body  in  arms  in  the  Indian  Territory 
under  the  Prophet,  and  committed  the  assault  on  the  troops  of 
Governor  Harrison,  though  they  have  paid  for  their  temerity. 
This,  I  trust,  connected  as  it  is  with  the  immorality  and  extraor- 
dinary pretensions  of  that  government  at  this  crisis,  will  satisfy, 
not  only  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  but  this  House,  of  a 
British  agency  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  regret  that  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
should  ascribe  to  gentlemen  of  the  West  a  disposition  for  war, 
with  a  view  to  raise  the  price  of  their  hemp ;  or  to  the  gentlemen 
of  the  North,  with  a  view  to  raise  the  price  of  their  beef  and 
flour.  These,  sir,  are  selfish  motives,  and  such  I  cannot  for  a 
moment  believe  will  be  taken  into  consideration ;  they  will,  with 
every  other  section  of  the  Union,  unite  in  deciding  it  on  its 
merits ;  they  will  count  the  wrongs  we  have  sustained ;  they  will 
reflect  that  the  honor,  the  interest,  and  the  very  independence  of 
the  United  States  are  directly  attacked ;  they  will,  as  guardians 
of  the  nation  's  rights,  agreeably  to  the  advice  of  the  administra- 
tion "put  the  United  States  into  an  armor  and  an  attitude  de- 
manded by  the  crisis,  and  correspondent  with  the  national  spirit 
and  expectations ";  they  will  prepare  to  chastise  the  wrongs 
of  the  British  cabinet  which,  the  President  tells  us,  "have  the 
character  as  well  as  the  effect  of  war  on  our  commercial  rights 
which  no  independent  nation  can  relinquish. ' '  They  will  decide, 
with  the  President,  the  executive  organ  of  the  nation's  will, 
"that  these  wrongs  are  no  longer  to  be  endured."  They  will 
decide,  with  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  "that  for- 
bearance longer  to  repel  these  wrongs  has  ceased  to  be  a  virtue, ' ' 
and  I  hope  they  will  decide  with  me  that  submission  is  a  crime ; 
and,  sir,  if  they  will  examine  a  document  on  that  table,  I  mean 
the  returns  of  the  Twelfth  Congress,  and  compare  them  with 
the  eleventh,  they  will  find  nearly  one-half  of  the  eleventh 
Congress  removed.  This,  sir,  may  correctly  be  considered  as 
the  sentence  of  the  nation  against  the  doctrine  of  submission; 
it  is  certainly  an  expression  of  the  nation's  will  in  a  language 
not  to  be  misunderstood  and  too  serious  in  its  application  not 
to  be  respected. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  says  he  expects 
to  be  charged  with  being  under  British  influence;  however,  he 
disregarded  it.    I  assure  him  I  shall  not  be  one  of  his  accusers ; 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  169 

I  believe  him  governed  by  himself,  and  influenced  by  pure 
American  motives,  and  that,  if  he  saw  the  subject  as  I  do,  his 
bosom  would  burn  with  the  same  sacred  fire  to  avenge  our 
wrongs;  and  were  I  to  hear  him  charged  in  his  absence  with 
British  influence  I  should  repel  it,  notwithstanding  he  has  told 
us,  in  a  prideful  manner,  that  he  had  descended  from  British 
ancestors;  that,  from  a  Shakespeare  he  had  formed  his  taste, 
from  a  Locke  his  mind,  from  a  Chatham  his  politics,  from  a 
Sydney  his  patriotism,  from  a  Tillotson  his  religion.  Mr. 
Speaker,  had  I  been  that  honorable  member  I  should  have 
boasted  a  nobler  line  of  ancestry;  I  should  have  claimed  my 
descent  from  the  beardless  Powhatan  and  the  immortal  Poca- 
hontas,1 and  I  should  have  taken  as  models,  from  my  own  State, 
a  Henry  for  my  eloquence,  a  Jefferson  for  my  politics,  a  Wash- 
ington for  my  patriotism,  and  a  Madison,  or  rather  the  Oracles 
of  Revolution,  for  my  religion.  But,  sir,  I  am  myself  so  much 
a  Roman  that  I  can  truly  say,  in  their  language : 

"Aut  genus  aut  proavos,  aut  qua  non  fecimus  ipse,  vix  ea  nostra  voco."* 

"  Honor  and  shame  from  no  condition  rise, 
Act  well  your  part,  there  all  the  honor  lies. ' ' 

Sir,  the  charge  of  foreign  influence  and  the  recrimination 
of  one  political  party  by  the  other  are  unpleasant  things.  I 
should  rejoice  to  see  the  curtain  of  oblivion  drawn  over  them 
and  all  uniting  under  the  nobler  distinction  of  American. 

Mr.  Calhoun. — Sir,  I  am  not  insensible  to  the  weighty  im- 
portance of  this  question,  for  the  first  time  submitted  to  this 
House,  as  a  redress  of  our  long  list  of  complaints  against  one 
of  the  belligerents;  but,  according  to  my  mode  of  thinking  on 
this  subject,  however  serious  the  question,  whenever  I  am  on 
its  affirmative  side  my  conviction  must  be  strong  and  unalterable. 
War,  in  this  country,  ought  never  to  be  resorted  to  but  when 
it  is  clearly  justifiable  and  necessary;  so  much  so  as  not  to 
require  the  aid  of  logic  to  convince  our  reason,  nor  the  ardor  of 
eloquence  to  inflame  our  passions.  There  are  many  reasons 
why  this  country  should  never  resort  to  it  but  for  causes  the 
most  urgent  and  necessary.  It  is  sufficient  that,  under  a  gov- 
ernment like  ours,  none  but  such  will  justify  it  in  the  eye  of 
the  nation;  and,  were  I  not  satisfied  that  such  is  the  present 
case,  I  certainly  would  be  no  advocate  of  the  proposition  now 
before  the  House. 

1  Kandolph  was  a  descendant  of  these  Indians. 

2 "Neither  race,  nor  ancestors,  nor  aught  save  what  I  myself  have  ac- 
complished hardly  do  I  call  mine." 


170  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Sir,  I  might  prove  the  war,  should  it  ensue,  justifiable  by 
the  express  admission  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia;  and 
necessary  by  facts  undoubted  and  universally  admitted,  such  as 
that  gentleman  did  not  pretend  to  controvert.  The  extent,  dura- 
tion, and  character  of  the  injuries  received ;  the  failure  of  those 
peaceful  means  heretofore  resorted  to  for  the  redress  of  our 
wrongs,  is  my  proof  that  it  is  necessary.  Why  should  I  mention 
the  impressment  of  our  seamen;  depredation  on  every  branch 
of  our  commerce,  including  the  direct  export  trade,  continued 
for  years,  and  made  under  laws  which  professedly  undertake  to 

("regulate  our  trade  with  other  nations;  negotiation  resorted  to 
time  after  time,  till  it  is  become  hopeless ;  the  restrictive  system 
persisted  in  to  avoid  war,  and  in  the  vain  expectation  of  return- 
ing justice?  The  evil  still  grows,  and  in  each  succeeding  year 
swells  in  extent  and  pretension  beyond  the  preceding.  The 
question,  even  in  the  opinion  and  admission  of  our  opponents, 
is  reduced  to  this  single  point — which  shall  we  do,  abandon  or 
defend  our  own  commercial  and  maritime  rights,  and  the  per- 
sonal liberties  of  our  citizens  employed  in  exercising  them? 
These  rights  are  essentially  attacked,  and  the  war  is  the  only 
means  of  redress.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  suggested 
none — unless  we  consider  the  whole  of  his  speech  as  recommend- 
ing patient  and  resigned  submission  as  the  best  remedy.  Sir, 
which  alternative  this  House  ought  to  embrace  it  is  not  for 
me  to  say.  I  hope  the  decision  is  made  already  by  a  higher 
authority  than  the  voice  of  any  man.  It  is  not  for  the  human 
tongue  to  instill  the  sense  of  independence  and  honor.  This  is 
the  work  of  nature — a  generous  nature,  that  disdains  tame  sub- 
mission to  wrongs. 

This  part  of  the  subject  is  so  imposing  as  to  enforce  silence 
even  on  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  He  dared  not  to  deny 
his  country's  wrongs,  or  vindicate  the  conduct  of  her  enemy. 

Only  one  point  of  that  gentleman's  argument  had  any,  the 
most  remote,  relation  to  this  point.  He  would  not  say  we  had 
not  a  good  cause  of  war,  but  insisted  that  it  was  our  duty  to 
define  that  cause.  If  he  means  that  this  House  ought,  at  this 
stage  of  the  proceeding,  or  any  other,  to  enumerate  such  viola- 
tions of  our  rights  as  we  are  willing  to  contend  for,  he  prescribes 
a  course  which  neither  good  sense  nor  the  usage  of  nations  war- 
rants. When  we  contend,  let  us  contend  for  all  our  rights; 
the  doubtful  and  the  certain,  the  unimportant  and  essential.  It 
is  as  easy  to  struggle,  or  even  more  so,  for  the  whole  as  a  part. 
At  the  termination  of  the  contest  secure  all  that  our  wisdom 
and  valor  and  the  fortune  of  the  war  will  permit.     This  is  the 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  171 

dictate  of  common  sense;  such,  also,  is  the  usage  of  nations. 
How,  then,  could  the  gentleman,  after  his  admissions,  with  the 
facts  before  him  and  the  nation,  complain?     The  causes  are 
such  as  to  warrant,  or  rather  make  it  indispensable  in  any  na- 
tion not  absolutely  dependent  to  defend  its  rights  by  force.    Let 
him,  then,  show  the  reasons  why  we  ought  not  so  to  defend  our- 
selves.   On  him,  then,  is  the  burden  of  proof.    This  he  has  at- 
tempted; he  has  endeavored  to  support  his  negative.     Before 
I  proceed  to  answer  the  gentleman  particularly,  let  me  call  the 
attention  of  the  House  to  one  circumstance :  that  is,  that  almost 
the  whole  of  his  arguments  consisted  of  an  enumeration  of  evils 
always  incident  to  war,  however  just  and  necessary;  and  that, 
if  they  have  any  force,   it  is  calculated  to   produce  unqual- 
ified  submission   to    every   species   of   insult    and    injury.     I 
do  not  feel  myself  bound  to  answer  arguments  of  the  above 
description;  and,  if  I  should  touch  on  them,  it  will  be  only 
incidentally  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  serious  refutation.    The 
first  argument  of  the  gentleman  which  I  shall  notice  is  the  un- 
prepared state  of  the  country.    Whatever  weight  this  argument 
might  have  in  a  question  of  immediate  war  it  surely  has  little  in 
that  of  preparation  for  it.     If  our  country  is  unprepared,  let 
us  remedy  the  evil  as  soon  as  possible.    Let  the  gentleman  sub- 
mit his  plan;  and,  if  a  reasonable  one,  I  doubt  not  it  will  be 
supported  by  the  House.    But,  sir,  let  us  admit  the  fact  and  the 
whole  force  of  the  argument,  I  ask  whose  is  the  fault  ?    Who  has 
been  a  member  for  many  years  past,  and  has  seen  the  defenceless 
state  of  his  country  even  near  home,  under  his  own  eyes,  with- 
out a  single  endeavor  to  remedy  so  serious  an  evil?    Let  him 
not  say:  "I  have  acted  in  a  minority."    It  is  no  less  the  duty 
of  the  minority  than  a  majority  to  endeavor  to  serve  our  coun- 
try.    For  that  purpose  we  are  sent  here,  and  not  for  that  of 
opposition.    We  are  next  told  of  the  expenses  of  the  war,  and 
that  people  will  not  pay  taxes.     Why  not?     Is  it  a  want  of 
capacity?     What,  with  one  million  tons  of  shipping,  a  trade 
of  near  $100,000,000,  manufactures  of  $150,000,000,  and  agri- 
culture of  thrice  that  amount,  shall  we  be  told  the  country  wants 
capacity  to  raise  and  support  ten  thousand  or  fifteen  thousand 
additional  regulars  ?    No ;  it  has  the  ability,  that  is  admitted ; 
but  will  it  not  have  the  disposition?    Is  not  the  course  a  just 
and  necessary  one?    Shall  we,  then,  utter  this  libel  on  the  na- 
tion?   Where  will  proof  be  found  of  a  fact  so  disgraceful?    It 
is  said  in  the  history  of  the  country  twelve  or  fifteen  years  ago. 
The  case  is  not  parallel.     The  ability  of  the  country  is  greatly 
increased  since.     The  object  of  that  tax  was  unpopular.     But 


172  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

on  this,  as  well  as  my  memory  and  almost  infant  observation 
at  that  time  serve  me,  the  objection  was  not  to  the  tax  or  its 
amount,  but  the  mode  of  collection.  The  eye  of  the  nation  was 
frightened  by  the  number  of  officers ;  its  love  of  liberty  shocked 
with  the  multiplicity  of  regulations.  We,  in  the  vile  spirit  of 
imitation,  copied  from  the  most  oppressive  part  of  European 
laws  on  that  subject,  and  imposed  on  a  young  and  virtuous  na- 
tion all  the  severe  provisions  made  necessary  by  corruption  and 
long  growing  chicane.  If  taxes  should  become  necessary  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  the  people  will  pay  cheerfully.  It  is  for 
their  Government  and  their  cause,  and  it  would  be  their  interest 
and  duty  to  pay.  But  it  may  be,  and  I  believe  was,  said  that 
the  nation  will  not  pay  taxes  because  the  rights  violated  are  not 
worth  defending,  or  that  the  defence  will  cost  more  than  the 
profit.  Sir,  I  here  enter  my  solemn  protest  against  this  low  and 
"calculating  avarice"  entering  this  hall  of  legislation.  It  is  fit 
only  for  shops  and  counting-houses,  and  ought  not  to  disgrace 
the  seat  of  sovereignty  by  its  squalid  and  vile  appearance. 
Whenever  it  touches  sovereign  power,  the  nation  is  ruined.  It 
is  too  short-sighted  to  defend  itself.  It  is  an  unpromising  spirit, 
always  ready  to  yield  a  part  to  save  the  balance.  It  is  too  timid 
to  have  in  itself  the  laws  of  self-preservation.  It  is  never  safe 
but  under  the  shield  of  honor. 

Sir,  I  know  of  only  one  principle  to  make  a  nation  great,  to 
produce  in  this  country  not  the  form  but  real  spirit  of  union, 
and  that  is  to  protect  every  citizen  in  the  lawful  pursuit  of  his 
business.  He  will  then  feel  that  he  is  backed  by  the  Govern- 
ment ;  that  its  arm  is  his  arms ;  and  will  rejoice  in  its  increased 
strength  andj)ros]3exity.  Protection  and  patriotism  are  recipro- 
caTT^Thls^lsTheroad  that  all  great  nations  have  trod.  Sir,  I 
am  not  versed  in  this  calculating  policy ;  and  will  not,  therefore, 
pretend  to  estimate  in  dollars  and  cents  the  value  of  national 
independence  or  national  affection.  I  cannot  dare  to  measure, 
in  shillings  and  pence,  the  misery,  the  stripes,  and  the  slavery 
of  our  impressed  seamen ;  nor  even  to  value  our  shipping,  com- 
mercial, and  agricultural  losses  under  the  Orders  in  Council  and 
the  British  system  of  blockade.  I  hope  I  have  not  condemned 
any  prudent  estimate  of  the  means  of  a  country  before  it  enters 
on  a  war.  This  is  wisdom,  the  other  folly.  Sir,  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  has  not  failed  to  touch  on  the  calamity  of  war; 
that  fruitful  source  of  declamation  by  which  pity  becomes  the 
advocate  of  cowardice ;  but  I  know  not  what  we  have  to  do  with 
that  subject.  If  the  gentleman  desires  to  repress  the  gallant 
ardor  of  our  countrymen  by  such  topics,  let  me  inform  him 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  173 

that  true  courage  regards  only  the  cause — that  it  is  just  and 
necessary — and  that  it  despises  the  pain  and  danger  of  war. 
If  he  really  wishes  to  promote  the  cause  of  humanity,  let  his 
eloquence  be  addressed  to  Lord  Wellesley  or  Mr.  Percival,  and 
not  the  American  Congress.  Tell  them,  if  they  persist  in  such 
daring  insult  and  injury  to  a  neutral  nation,  that,  however 
inclined  to  peace,  it  will  be  bound  in  honor  and  interest  to  resist ; 
that  their  patience  and  benevolence,  however  great,  will  be  ex- 
hausted; that  the  calamity  of  war  will  ensue;  and  that  they, 
in  the  opinion  of  wounded  humanity,  will  be  answerable  for  all 
its  devastation  and  misery.  Let  melting  pity  and  regard  to  the 
interest  of  humanity  stay  the  hand  of  injustice,  and,  my  life 
on  it,  the  gentleman  will  not  find  it  difficult  to  call  off  his  coun- 
try from  the  bloody  scenes  of  war. 

We  are  next  told  of  the  danger  of  war !  I  believe  we  are  all 
ready  to  acknowledge  its  hazard  and  accidents;  but  I  cannot 
think  we  have  any  extraordinary  danger  to  contend  with,  at 
least  so  much  as  to  warrant  an  acquiescence  in  the  injuries  we 
have  received.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  no  war  can  be  less 
dangerous  to  internal  peace  or  national  existence.  But  we  are 
told  of  the  black  population  of  the  South.  As  far  as  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  speaks  of  his  own  personal  knowledge  I 
will  not  pretend  to  contradict  him;  I  only  regret  that  such  is 
the  dreadful  state  of  his  particular  part  of  the  country.  Of 
the  Southern  section  I,  too,  have  some  personal  knowledge,  and 
can  say  that  in  South  Carolina  no  such  fears  in  any  part  are 
felt.  But,  sir,  admit  the  gentleman's  statement;  will  a  war 
with  Great  Britain  increase  the  danger?  Will  the  country  be 
less  able  to  repress  insurrection?  Had  we  any  thing  to  fear 
from  that  quarter,  which  I  sincerely  disbelieve,  in  my  opinion, 
the  precise  time  of  the  greatest  safety  is  during  a  war  in  which 
we  have  no  fear  of  invasion — then  the  country  is  most  on  its 
guard;  our  militia  the  best  prepared;  and  standing  force  the 
greatest.  Even  in  our  Revolution  no  attempts  were  made  by 
that  portion  of  our  population;  and,  however  the  gentleman 
may  frighten  himself  with  the  disorganizing  effects  of  French 
principles,  I  cannot  think  our  ignorant  blacks  have  felt  much 
of  their  baneful  influence.  I  dare  say  more  than  one-half  of 
them  never  heard  of  the  French  Revolution. 

But,  as  great  as  is  the  danger  from  our  slaves,  the  gentle- 
man 's  fears  end  not  there — the  standing  army  is  not  less  terrible 
to  him.  Sir,  I  think  a  regular  force,  raised  for  a  period  of 
actual  hostilities,  cannot  be  called  a  standing  army.  There  is 
a  just  distinction  between  such  a  force,  and  one  raised  as  a 


174  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

peace  establishment.  Whatever  may  be  the  composition  of  the 
latter,  I  hope  the  former  will  consist  of  some  of  the  best  ma- 
terials of  the  country.  The  ardent  patriotism  of  our  young 
men,  and  the  reasonable  bounty  in  land  which  is  proposed  to 
be  given,  will  impel  them  to  join  their  country's  standard  and 
to  fight  her  battles ;  they  will  not  forget  the  citizen  in  the  soldier, 
and,  in  obeying  their  officer,  learn  to  contemn  their  Constitu- 
tion. In  our  officers  and  soldiers  we  will  find  patriotism  no  less 
pure  and  ardent  than  in  the  private  citizen ;  but,  if  they  should 
be  depraved,  as  represented,  what  have  we  to  fear  from  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  thousand  regulars?  Where  will  be  the  boasted 
militia  of  the  gentleman?  Can  one  million  of  militia  be  over- 
powered by  thirty  thousand  regulars?  If  so,  how  can  we  rely 
on  them  against  a  foe  invading  our  country?  Sir,  I  have  no 
such  contemptuous  idea  of  our  militia — their  untaught  bravery 
is  sufficient  to  crush  all  foreign  and  internal  attempts  on  their 
country's  liberties. 

But  we  have  not  yet  come  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  of  dan- 
gers. The  gentleman's  imagination,  so  fruitful  on  this  subject, 
conceives  that  our  Constitution  is  not  calculated  for  war,  and 
that  it  cannot  stand  its  rude  shock.  This  is  rather  extraordinary 
— we  must  depend  upon  the  pity  or  contempt  of  other  nations 
for  our  existence.  The  Constitution,  it  seems,  has  failed  in  its 
essential  part,  "to  provide  for  the  common  defence."  No,  says 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  it  is  competent  for  a  defensive, 
but  not  an  offensive,  war.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  expose 
the  error  of  this  opinion.  Why  make  the  distinction  in  this 
instance  ?  Will  he  pretend  to  say  that  this  is  an  offensive  war ; 
a  war  of  conquest  ?  Yes,  the  gentleman  has  dared  to  make  this 
assertion;  and  for  reasons  no  less  extraordinary  than  the  asser- 
tion itself.  He  says  our  rights  are  violated  on  the  ocean,  and 
that  these  violations  affect  our  shipping  and  commercial  rights, 
to  which  the  Canadas  have  no  relation.  The  doctrine  of  retalia- 
tion has  been  much  abused  of  late  by  an  unnatural  extension; 
we  have  now  to  witness  a  new  abuse.  The  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia has  limited  it  down  to  a  point.  By  his  system,  if  you 
receive  a  blow  on  the  breast,  you  dare  not  return  it  on  the  head, 
you  are  obliged  to  measure  and  return  it  on  the  precise  point 
on  which  it  was  received.  If  you  do  not  proceed  with  mathe- 
matical accuracy  it  ceases  to  be  just  self-defence;  it  becomes 
an  unprovoked  attack.  In  speaking  of  Canada  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  introduced  the  name  of  Montgomery  with  much 
feeling  and  interest.  Sir,  there  is  danger  in  that  name  to  the 
gentleman 's  argument.    It  is  sacred  to  heroism !    It  is  indignant 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  175 

of  submission!  This  calls  my  memory  back  to  the  time  of  our 
Revolution;  to  the  Congress  of  74  and  75.  Supposing  a 
speaker  of  that  day  had  risen  and  urged  all  the  arguments 
which  we  have  heard  on  this  subject;  had  told  that  Congress: 
"your  contest  is  about  the  right  of  laying  a  tax,  and  that  the 
attempt  on  Canada  had  nothing  to  do  with  it;  that  the  war 
would  be  expensive;  that  danger  and  devastation  would  over- 
spread our  country;  and  that  the  power  of  Great  Britain  was 
irresistible. ' '  With  what  sentiment,  think  you,  would  such  doc- 
trines have  been  received?  Happy  for  us,  they  had  no  force 
at  that  period  of  our  country's  glory.  Had  they  been  then  acted 
on,  this  hall  would  never  have  witnessed  a  great  nation  con- 
vened to  deliberate  for  the  general  good ;  a  mighty  empire,  with 
prouder  prospects  than  any  nation  the  sun  ever  shone  on  would 
not  have  risen  in  the  West.  No;  we  would  have  been  vile, 
subjected  colonies;  governed  by  that  imperious  rod  which  Great 
Britain  holds  over  her  distant  provinces. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  is  at  a  loss  to  account  for 
what  he  calls  our  hatred  to  England.  He  asks  how  can  we  hate 
the  country  of  Locke,  of  Newton,  Hampden,  and  Chaham;  a 
country  having  the  same  language  and  customs  with  ourselves, 
and  descending  from  a  common  ancestry.  ^Sir,  the  laws  of 
human  affections  are  uniform.)  If  we  have  so  much  to  attach  us 
to  that  country  powerful  indeed  must  be  the  cause  which  has 
overpowered  it. 

Yes,  sir,  there  is  a  cause  strong  enough.  Not  that  occult 
courtly  affection  which  he  has  supposed  to  be  entertained  for 
France;  but  it  is  to  be  found  in  continued  and  unprovoked 
insult  and  injury.  A  cause  so  manifest  that  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  had  to  exert  much  ingenuity  to  overlook  it.  But, 
sir,  here  I  think  the  gentleman,  in  his  eager  admiration  of 
that  country,  has  not  been  sufficiently  guarded  in  his  argument. 
Has  he  reflected  on  the  cause  of  that  admiration?  Has  he  ex- 
amined the  reasons  of  our  high  regard  for  her  Chatham?  It 
is  his  ardent  patriotism;  the  heroic  courage  of  his  mind  that 
could  not  brook  the  least  insult  or  injury  offered  to  his  country, 
but  thought  that  her  interest  and  honor  ought  to  be  vindicated 
at  every  hazard  and  expense. 

[Here  Mr.  Calhoun  indulged  in  a  rather  ungenerous 
comparison  between  Lord  Chatham  and  Mr.  Randolph, 
the  Representative  from  Virginia  having  challenged  it, 
which,  on  reflection,  the  young  member  from  South  Caro- 
lina caused  to  be  omitted  from  the  recorded  speech.] 


176  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Mr.  Randolph. — The  nation  has  been  brought  into  its  pres- 
ent alarming  and  unprecedented  situation  by  means  in  nowise 
unaccountable — by  steps  as  direct  and  successive  as  Hogarth's 
celebrated  series  of  prints,  ' '  The  Rake 's  Progress, ' '  beginning  at 
the  gaming  table  and  ending  in  a  jail,  or  in  bedlam.  We  com- 
menced our  system  somewhat  on  the  plan  of  Catharine  of  Rus- 
sia, when  she  lent  her  nominal  aid  to  the  coalition;  we  had 
dealt  even  more  profusely  than  she  in  manifestoes;  we  began, 
under  the  instigation  of  mercantile  cupidity,  to  contend  by 
proclamations  and  resolutions  for  the  empire  of  the  ocean.  But, 
instead  of  confining  ourselves  as  she  had  done  to  this  bloodless 
warfare,  we  must  copy  the  wise  example  of  her  successors,  and, 
after  our  battle  of  Friedland,  I  suppose  we  also  shall  have  our 
peace  of  Tilsit. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  expressed  surprise  at 
my  manner  of  speaking  of  our  origin  from  an  English  stock. 
We  were  vastly  particular  about  the  breed  of  our  horses, 
cattle,  and  sheep,  but  careless  of  the  breed  of  human  nature. 
And  yet  to  our  Anglo-Saxon  origin  we  owe  our  resistance  to 
British  tyranny.  Whence,  but  from  that  origin  came  all  the 
blessings  of  life,  so  far  as  political  privileges  are  concerned? 
To  what  is  it  owing  that  we  are  at  this  moment  deliberating 
under  the  forms  of  a  free  representative  government?  Had 
we  sprung  from  the  loins  of  Frenchmen  (he  shuddered  at  the 
thought!)  where  would  have  been  that  proud  spirit  of  resistance 
to  ministerial  encroachment  on  our  rights  and  liberties  which 
achieved  our  independence?  In  what  school  had  the  illustrious 
men  of  the  Revolution  formed  those  noble  principles  of  civil 
liberty  asserted  by  their  eloquence  and  maintained  by  their 
arms?  Among  the  grievances  stated  in  their  remonstrance  to 
the  King  a  "standing  army"  met  us  at  the  threshold.  It  was 
curious  to  see  in  that  list  of  wrongs  so  many  that  had  since 
been  self-inflicted  by  us. 

I  will  forever  stand  up  for  the  militia.  It  is  not  in  the  scoffs 
of  the  epaulette  gentry,  who,  for  any  service  they  have  seen,  are 
the  rawest  militia,  to  degrade  them  in  my  eyes.  Who  are  they  ? 
Ourselves — the  country.  Arm  them  and  you  are  safe,  beyond 
the  possibility  of  danger.  Yearly  did  the  standing  army  sweep 
off  the  money,  while  the  militia  received  empty  praise.  I  would 
rather  see  the  thing  reversed.  But  there  will  forever  be  a  court 
and  country  party.  The  standing  army  is  the  devoted  creature 
of  the  court.  It  must  forever  be  so.  Can  we  wonder  that  it 
should  be  cherished  by  its  master  ?  I  will  ever  uphold  the  mili- 
tia; but  I  detest  standing  armies  as  the  profligate  instruments 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  177 

of  despotism,  as  the  bloodhounds  of  hell.  They  would  support 
any  and  every  existing  government.  In  all  history  I  remember 
only  one  instance  of  their  deserting  their  government  and  taking 
part  with  the  people:  and  that  was  when  the  Duke  of  Orleans 
had  bribed  the  army  of  the  last  of  the  Bourbon  Kings.  A  mer- 
cenary soldier  is  disgusting  to  our  senses;  odious  and  detestable 
to  the  eye  of  reason,  republicanism,  and  religion.  Yet,  that 
1 '  mere  machine  of  murder, ' '  rude  as  it  is,  was  the  manufacturer 
of  all  the  Caesars  and  Cromwells,  and  Bonapartes  of  the  earth ; 
consecrated  by  a  people's  curse,  not  loud  but  deep,  to  the  in- 
fernal gods.  As  from  the  filth  of  the  kennel  and  common  sewer 
spread  the  pestilence  that  carried  havoc  through  a  great  city, 
so  from  this  squalid,  outcast,  homeless  wretch  springs  the 
scourge  of  military  despotism.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  there  is 
no  danger  from  an  army  of  thirty  or  forty  thousand  men. 
With  five  thousand  Caesar  had  passed  the  Rubicon.  With 
twenty-two  thousand  he  fought  the  battle  of  Pharsalia  which 
rendered  him  master  of  the  world.  To  come  to  later  times — 
what  number  had  Bonaparte  when,  deserting  his  companions 
in  arms,  he  returned  a  solitary  fugitive  from  Egypt,  to  over- 
turn that  government  which,  if  it  had  possessed  one  particle  of 
energy,  if  it  had  been  possible  for  the  civil  authority  to  cope 
with  military  power,  would  have  cashiered  him  for  having 
ruined  one  of  the  best-appointed  fleets  and  armies  that  ever 
sailed  from  a  European  port  ?  Well  might  the  father  of  politi- 
cal wisdom  (Lord  Chatham)  say  to  the  Parliament  of  England: 
"entrench  yourselves  in  parchment  to  the  teeth,  the  sword 
will  find  a  passage  to  the  vitals  of  the  constitution. ' '  As  good 
a  Republican  as  ever  sat  on  that  floor  (Andrew  Fletcher  of 
Saltoun)  had  dissolved  his  political  friendship  with  the  Earl  of 
Sunderland  when  he  found  him  supporting  an  army;  and  the 
event  justified  his  sagacity.  Cromwell,  the  affected  patron  of 
liberty,  always  encouraged  the  army.  We  know  the  conse- 
quence. It  was  a  fundamental  principle  of  free  government 
that  a  legislature  which  would  preserve  its  liberty  must  avoid 
that  canker,  a  standing  army.  Are  we  to  forget,  as  chimeri- 
cal, our  notions  of  this  institution  which  we  imbibed  from  our 
very  cradles,  which  are  imprinted  on  our  bills  of  rights  and 
Constitutions,  which  we  avowed  under  the  reign  of  John  Adams ! 
Are  they  to  be  scourged  out  of  us  by  the  birch  of  the  unfledged 
political  pedagogues  of  the  day?  If  I  were  the  enemy  of  this 
Government,  could  I  reconcile  it  to  my  principles,  I  would 
follow  the  example  set  me  in  another  quarter  and  say  to  the 
majority,  go  to  your  inevitable  destruction!    I  liken  the  people 


178  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

under  this  joint  operation  of  the  two  parties,  ministerial  and 
federal,  to  the  poor  client  between  two  lawyers,  or  the  cloth 
between  the  tailor's  shears. 

I  am  glad  to  hear  that  this  is  not  to  be  a  party  war.  When 
the  last  additional  force  bill  was  raised,  to  which  this  was  about 
to  be  superadded,  it  was  an  indispensable  preliminary  to 
an  appointment  to  sign,  or  to  promise  to  sign,  the  thirty-nine 
articles  of  the  creed  of  the  reigning  political  church.  But  now 
the  political  millennium  was  at  hand — already  had  John  Adams 
and  Citizen  Genet  laid  down,  like  the  lion  and  the  lamb,  in  the 
same  fold.  And,  if  they  were  not  joined  by  their  fellow-laborer 
in  Newgate,  it  was  his  keeper's  fault,  not  that  of  his  inclina- 
tion. Citizen  Genet,  now  an  American  patriot  of  the  first  order, 
who  extols  "our  Washington";  the  champion  of  the  laws  of 
nations;  the  vindicator  of  American  rights  against  foreign  (and, 
of  course,  French)   aggression! 

I  am  glad  to  hear  that  it  is  not  to  be  a  war  for  the  protection 
of  manufactures.  To  domestic  manufactures,  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  term,  I  have  always  been,  and  ever  shall  be,  a  friend; 
I  have  taken  a  pride  in  clothing  myself  in  them  until  it  was 
attempted  to  be  made  a  political  test.  I  abhor  tests  of  all  sorts, 
political  and  religious,  and  never  will  submit  to  them.  I  am  sick 
of  this  cant  of  patriotism  which  extends  to  a  man's  victuals, 
drink,  and  clothes.  I  have,  from  a  sort  of  obstinacy  that  be- 
longs to  me,  laid  aside  the  external  use  of  these  manufactures; 
but  I  am  their  firm  friend,  and  of  the  manufacturers  also.  They 
are  no  new  things  to  me;  no  Merino  hobby  of  the  day;  I  have 
known  them  from  my  infancy. 

On  April  1,  1812,  President  Madison,  reverting  to  his 
favorite  weapon  of  commercial  restrictions,  sent  a  con- 
fidential message  to  Congress  which  proposed  as  "expe- 
dient under  existing  circumstances  and  prospects"  a 
general  embargo  for  sixty  days. 

This  was  discussed  in  executive  session,  the  pro- 
ceedings, however,  being  printed  later  by  order  of  the 
House. 

The  debate  centered  upon  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  embargo  was  what  it  was  evidently  intended  to  mean, 
namely,  a  genuine  preparation  for  war,  or  whether 
it  was  another  measure  in  the  long  series  of  commercial 
restrictions  on  which  the  Government  had  thus  far  vainly 
relied  to  bring  Great  Britain  to  terms.     Henry  Clay 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  179 

[Ky.],  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  upheld  the  former  view. 
He  was  opposed  by  John  Randolph  and  Josiah  Quincy, 
3rd  [Mass.]. 

The  Wae  Embaego 
House  op  Representatives,  April  1-3,  1812 

Mr.  Clay  warmly  expressed  his  satisfaction  and  full  appro- 
bation of  the  message,  and  the  proposition  now  before  the 
committee.  He  approved  of  it  because  it  is  to  be  viewed  as  a 
direct  precursor  to  war.  Sir,  said  Mr.  C,  after  the  pledges 
we  have  made,  and  the  stand  we  have  taken,  are  we  now  to  cover 
ourselves  with  shame  and  indelible  disgrace  by  retreating  from 
the  measures  and  grounds  we  have  taken?  He  said  what  would 
disgrace  an  individual  under  certain  circumstances  would  dis- 
grace a  nation.  And  what  would  you  think  of  one  individual 
who  had  thus  conducted  to  another,  and  should  then  retreat? 
He  said  there  was  no  intrinsic  difficulty  or  terror  in  the  war: 
there  was  no  terror  except  what  arises  from  the  novelty.  Where 
are  we  to  come  in  contact  with  our  enemy?  On  our  own  con- 
tinent. If  gentlemen  please  to  call  these  sentiments  Quixotic  he 
would  say  he  pitied  them  for  their  sense  of  honor.  We  know 
no  pains  have  been  spared  to  villify  the  Government.  If  we 
now  proceed  we  shall  be  supported  by  the  people.  Many  of  our 
people  have  not  believed  that  war  is  to  take  place.  They  have 
been  wilfully  blinded.  He  was  willing  to  give  them  further 
notice.  It  remains  for  us  to  say  whether  we  will  shrink  or 
follow  up  the  patriotic  conduct  of  the  President.  As  an  Ameri- 
can and  a  member  of  this  House  he  felt  a  pride  that  the  Execu- 
tive had  recommended  this  measure. 

Mr.  Randolph  was  confident  in  declaring  that  this  was  not 
a  measure  of  the  Executive — that  it  was  engendered  by  an  ex- 
tensive excitement  upon  the  Executive.  Whose  ever  measure 
it  is  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  consider  it  as  a  subter- 
fuge for  war ;  as  a  retreat  from  the  battle.  We  some  years  ago 
resolved  that  we  must  have  war,  embargo,  or  submission — we 
have  not  had  war  or  submitted — we  must  therefore  have  em- 
bargo. It  appears  to  be  limited  to  sixty  days ;  at  the  expiration 
of  that  time  will  any  one  say  we  shall  be  prepared  for  war? 
Sir,  we  are  in  the  situation  of  a  debtor  who  promises  to  pay  his 
note  at  the  bank  in  sixty  days — we  shall  prolong  the  time  sixty 
days,  and  sixty  days  after  that,  until  deferred  hope  makes  the 
heart  sick.  He  would  tell  the  honorable  Speaker  that,  at  the 
end  of  sixty  days,  we  shall  not  have  war,  and  the  reason  is  the 


180 


GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 


Executive  dare  not  plunge  the  nation  into  a  war  in  our  unpre- 
pared state. 

Are  the  majority,  in  consequence  of  having  been  goaded 
by  the  presses,  to  plunge  the  people  into  a  war  by  bringing 
them  first  to  the  whipping-post  and  then  by  exciting  their  spirit  ? 
He  would  assure  the  House  the  spirit  of  the  people  is  not  up 
to  it  at  this  time;  if  so,  there  would  be  no  necessity  of  those 
provocations  to  excite  this  false  spirit — this  kind  of  Dutch  cour- 
age. If  you  mean  war,  if  the  spirit  of  the  country  is  up  to  it, 
why  have  you  been  spending  five  months  in  idle  debate  ? 


tffSHOE  Hie  IjaftV, 


From  Lossing's  "Field  Book  of  the  War  of  1812  " 

Mr.  Quincy  expressed  in  strong  terms  his  abhorrence  of  the 
measure.  He  said  that  his  objection  was  that  it  was  not  what 
it  pretended  to  be ;  and  was  what  it  pretended  not  to  be.  That 
it  was  not  embargo  preparatory  to  war ;  but  that  it  was  embargo 
as  a  substitute  for  the  question  of  declaring  war. 

But  it  is  said  "we  must  protect  our  merchants."  Heaven 
help  our  merchants  from  embargo-protection!  It  is  also  said 
that  "the  present  condition  of  things  has  been  brought  upon 
the  country  by  the  merchants;  that  it  was  their  clamor,  in 
1805  and  1806,  which  first  put  Congress  upon  this  system  of 
coercive  restriction,  of  which  they  now  so  much  complain." 
It  is  true  that,  in  those  years,  the  merchants  did  pe'tition,  not 
for  embargo,  not  for  commercial  embarrassment  and  annihila- 
tion, but  for  protection.     They,  at  that  time,  really  thought 


RESISTANCE    OR    SUBMISSION?  181 

that  this  national  Government  was  formed  for  protection,  and 
that  it  had  at  heart  the  prosperity  of  all  the  great  interests  of 
the  country.  If  "it  was  a  grievous  fault,  grievously  have  the 
merchants  answered  it."  They  asked  you  for  relief  and  you 
sent  them  embarrassment.  They  asked  you  for  defence  and  you 
imposed  embargo.  They  "asked  bread  and  you  gave  them  a 
stone."  They  "asked  a  fish  and  you  gave  them  a  serpent.' ' 
Grant  that  the  fault  was  great,  suppose  that  they  did  mistake 
the  nature  and  character  of  the  Government,  is  the  penalty 
they  incurred  by  this  error  never  to  be  remitted !  Permit  them 
once  to  escape  and,  my  word  for  it,  they  will  never  give  you 
an  apology  for  this  destructive  protection.  If  they  do  they 
will  richly  deserve  all  the  misery  which,  under  the  name  of 
protection,  you  can  find  means  to  visit  upon  them.  Your  tender 
mercies  are  cruelties.  The  merchants  hate  and  spurn  this  ruin- 
ous defence. 

Seeing  the  war  spirit  in  Congress  President  Madison 
laid  aside  his  pet  remedy  of  commercial  retaliation 
against  British  aggression,  and  reluctantly  resorted  to 
armed  resistance. 


CHAPTER  Vn 

The  Second  Wae  with  Great  Britain 

President  Madison's  Message  on  Eelations  with  Great  Britain — Declaration 
of  War — Protest  of  the  Minority — The  President's  Message  on  "The 
Justice  of  the  War" — Debate  on  Bill  to  Eaise  Additional  Troops;  It 
Develops  into  One  on  the  Justice  and  Expediency  of  the  War:  in 
Favor  of  the  War:  Felix  Grundy  [Tenn.],  Henry  Clay  [Ky.]  ;  Opposed, 
Joseph  Pearson  [N.  C],  Timothy  Pitkin,  Jr.  [Conn.],  Josiah  Quincy,  3rd 
[Mass.],  John  Randolph  [Va.] — New  England  State  Governments  Op- 
pose Call  for  Troops  as  Unconstitutional — Debate  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives Between  Daniel  Webster  [N.  H.],  in  Opposition  to  the  War, 
and  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C]  in  Its  Defence — The  Hartford  Convention 
—The  Treaty  of  Ghent. 

ON  June  1,  1812,  the  President  sent  a  message  to 
Congress  which,  exhaustively  reviewing  our  re- 
lations with  Great  Britain,  summed  up  the  situ- 
ation as  follows: 

We  behold,  in  fine,  on  the  side  of  Great  Britain,  a  state  of 
war  against  the  United  States;  and,  on  the  side  of  the  United 
States,  a  state  of  peace  toward  Great  Britain. 

Whether  the  United  States  shall  continue  passive  under 
these  progressive  usurpations,  and  their  accumulating  wrongs, 
or,  opposing  force  to  force  in  defence  of  their  national  rights, 
shall  commit  a  just  cause  into  the  hands  of  the  Almighty  Dis- 
poser of  Events,  avoiding  all  connections  which  might  entangle 
it  in  the  contest  or  views  of  other  powers,  and  preserving  a 
constant  readiness  to  concur  in  an  honorable  reestablishment 
of  peace  and  friendship,  is  a  solemn  question  which  the  Con- 
stitution wisely  confides  to  the  legislative  department  of  the 
Government.  In  recommending  it  to  their  early  deliberation, 
I  am  happy  in  the  assurance  that  the  decision  will  be  worthy 
the  enlightened  and  patriotic  councils  of  a  virtuous,  a  free,  and 
a  powerful  nation. 

182 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  183 

Declaration  of  Wae 

The  message  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  which 
John  C.  Calhoun  was  chairman.  On  June  3  he  brought 
in  the  report  of  the  committee  which  reviewed  the  case 
against  Great  Britain  even  more  fully  than  the  Presi- 
dent had  done,  and  concluded  with  the  recommendation 
of  an  immediate  appeal  to  arms. 

"Your  committee,  believing  that  the  free-born  sons  of  Amer- 
ica are  worthy  to  enjoy  the  liberty  which  their  fathers  purchased 
at  the  price  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  and  seeing,  in  the 
measures  adopted  by  Great  Britain,  a  course  commenced  and 
persisted  in,  which  must  lead  to  a  loss  of  national  character 
and  independence,  feel  no  hesitation  in  advising  resistance 
by  force ;  in  which  the  Americans  of  the  present  day  will  prove 
to  the  enemy  and  to  the  world  that  we  have  not  only  inherited 
that  liberty  which  our  fathers  gave  us,  but  also  the  will  and 
power  to  maintain  it.  Relying  on  the  patriotism  of  the  nation, 
and  confidently  trusting  that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  will  go  with  us 
to  battle  in  the  righteous  cause  and  crown  our  efforts  with  suc- 
cess, your  committee  recommend  an  immediate  appeal  to  arms." 

On  June  16,  1812,  the  Senate  passed  a  bill  declaring 
war  with  Great  Britain.  It  was  concurred  in  by  the 
House  on  June  18,  and  approved  by  the  President  on 
the  same  day. 

The  minority  in  the  House  of  Representatives  drew 
up  the  following  protest  against  the  declaration,  which 
they  addressed  to  their  constituents : 

The  momentous  question  of  war  with  Great  Britain  is  de- 
cided. On  this  topic,  so  vital  to  your  interests,  the  right  of 
public  debate,  in  the  face  of  the  world,  and  especially  of  their 
constituents,  has  been  denied  to  your  Representatives.  They 
have  been  called  into  secret  session  on  this  most  interesting  of 
all  your  public  relations,  although  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  and  of  the  nation  afforded  no  one  reason  for  secrecy,  unless 
it  be  found  in  the  apprehension  of  the  effect  of  public  debate 
on  public  opinion;  or  of  public  opinion  on  the  result  of  the 
vote. 

Except  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  now  before  the  public,  nothing  confidential  was  com- 
municated.    That  message   contained  no   fact   not   previously 


184  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

known.  No  one  reason  for  war  was  intimated  but  such  as 
was  of  a  nature  public  and  notorious.  The  intention  to  wage 
war  and  invade  Canada  had  been  long  since  openly  avowed. 
The  object  of  hostile  menace  had  been  ostentatiously  announced. 
The  inadequacy  of  both  our  army  and  navy  for  successful 
invasion,  and  the  insufficiency  of  the  fortifications  for  the  se- 
curity of  our  seaboard,  were  everywhere  known.  Yet  the 
doors  of  Congress  were  shut  upon  the  people.  They  have  been 
carefully  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  progress  of  measures,  until 
the  purposes  of  the  administration  were  consummated  and  the 
fate  of  the  country  sealed.  In  a  situation  so  extraordinary  the 
undersigned  have  deemed  it  their  duty  by  no  act  of  theirs  to 
sanction  a  proceeding  so  novel  and  arbitrary.  On  the  contrary, 
they  made  every  .attempt  in  their  power  to  attain  publicity  for 
their  proceedings.  All  such  attempts  were  vain.  When  this 
momentous  subject  was  stated  as  for  debate,  they  demanded 
that  the  doors  should  be  opened. 

This  being  refused,  they  declined  discussion ;  being  perfectly 
convinced,  from  indications  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood,  that, 
in  the  House,  all  argument  with  closed  doors  was  hopeless,  and 
that  any  act  giving  implied  validity  to  so  flagrant  an  abuse 
of  power  would  be  little  less  than  treachery  to  the  essential 
rights  of  a  free  people. 


A  Eighteous  War 

Message  to  Congress  by  President  Madison 

In  his  animal  message  to  Congress  at  its  next  session, 
in  November,  1812,  the  President,  after  stating  the  mili- 
tary operations  which  had  been  undertaken,  and  recom- 
mending measures  of  war  proper  to  the  circumstances, 
said: 

Above  all,  we  have  the  inestimable  consolation  of  knowing 
that  the  war  in  which  we  are  actually  engaged  is  a  war  neither 
of  ambition  nor  of  vain  glory ;  that  it  is  waged,  not  in  violation 
of  the  rights  of  others,  but  in  the  maintenance  of  our  own ;  that 
it  was  preceded  by  a  patience  without  example,  under  wrongs 
accumulating  without  end :  and  that  it  was  finally  not  declared 
until  every  hope  of  averting  it  was  extinguished  by  the  transfer 
of  the  British  scepter  into  new  hands  clinging  to  former  coun- 
cils; and,  until  declarations  were  reiterated  to  the  last  hour, 
through  the  British  envoy  here,  that  the  hostile  edicts  against 


THE   WAR    OF    1812  185 

our  commercial  rights  and  our  maritime  independence  would  not 
be  revoked ;  nay,  that  they  could  not  be  revoked  without  violat- 
ing the  obligations  of  Great  Britain  to  other  powers,  as  well  as 
to  her  own  interests.  To  have  shrunk,  under  such  circumstan- 
ces, from  manly  resistance  would  have  been  a  degradation  blast- 
ing our  best  and  proudest  hopes ;  it  would  have  struck  us  from 
the  high  ranks  where  the  virtuous  struggles  of  our  fathers  had 
placed  us,  and  have  betrayed  the  magnificent  legacy  which  we 
hold  in  trust  for  future  generations.  It  would  have  acknowl- 
edged that,  on  the  element  which  forms  three-fourths  of  the 
globe  we  inhabit,  and  where  all  independent  nations  have  equal 
and  common  rights,  the  American  people  were  not  an  independ- 
ent people,  but  colonists  and  vassals.  It  was  at  this  moment, 
and  with  such  an  alternative,  that  war  was  chosen.  The  nation 
felt  the  necessity  of  it  and  called  for  it.  The  appeal  was  ac- 
cordingly made,  in  a  just  cause,  to  the  just  and  all-powerful 
Being  who  holds  in  His  hand  the  chain  of  events  and  the 
destiny  of  nations.  It  remains  only  that,  faithful  to  ourselves, 
entangled  in  no  connections  with  the  views  of  other  powers,  and 
ever  ready  to  accept  peace  from  the  hand  of  justice,  we  prose- 
cute the  war  with  united  counsels  and  with  the  ample  faculties 
of  the  nation,  until  peace  be  so  obtained  and  as  the  only  means, 
under  the  Divine  blessing,  of  speedily  obtaining  it. 

A  bill  to  raise  an  additional  military  force  which  it 
was  intended  to  nse  for  the  conquest  of  Canada  (a  pet 
plan  of  the  Administration)  was  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  on  December  24,  1812,  by  David  R. 
Williams,  of  South  Carolina,  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs.  It  was  debated  from  December  29, 
1812,  to  January  14,  1813,  when  it  was  passed  by  a  vote 
of  77  to  42. 

Of  this  debate  Senator  Benton  says,  in  his  "Debates 
of  Congress": 

This  debate,  although  arising  on  a  subject  which  implied  a 
limited  discussion,  soon  passed  beyond  its  apparent  bounds,  and, 
instead  of  being  confined  to  the  simple  military  question  of  rais- 
ing additional  troops,  expanded  into  a  discussion  of  the  whole 
policy,  objects,  and  causes  of  the  war,  and  became  the  principal 
debate  of  the  session.  All  the  leading  members  of  the  House 
took  part  in  it ;  and  many  new  members,  then  young,  and  whose 
names  have  since  become  famous,  then  took  their  start. 


186  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  chief  speakers  in  favor  of  a  continuance  of  the 
war  were:  Felix  Grundy  [Tenn.]  and  Henry  Clay 
[Ky.].  Leading  opponents  of  the  war  were:  Joseph 
Pearson  [N.  C],  Timothy  Pitkin,  Jr.  [Conn.],  Josiah 
Quincy,  3rd  [Mass.],  and  John  Randolph  [Va.]. 

The  Continuance  of  the  War 

House  op  Representatives,  December  29,  1812-January  14, 

1813 

Mr.  Pearson. — Mr.  Speaker:  Whatever  may  have  heen  the 
original  causes  for  the  declaration  of  this  war,  we  are  now 
taught  to  believe  that  the  question  in  contest  is  reduced  to  a 
single  point.  The  British  Orders  in  Council  were  repealed  on 
the  21st  of  June,  three  days  after  our  declaration  of  war ;  and, 
of  course,  without  a  knowledge  of  that  event,  the  blockade  of 
May,  1806,  had  long  ceased  to  exist.  The  sole  avowed  cause, 
therefore,  remaining,  and  for  which  the  war  is  now  carried  on, 
is  the  practice  of  impressment  from  on  board  our  merchant  ves- 
sels. This  subject  has  for  many  years  engaged  the  attention  of 
both  nations;  it  has  been  a  fruitful  theme  of  execration  and 
declamation  for  almost  every  editor  and  orator  of  the  age. 
Great  as  our  cause  of  complaint  may  have  been  (and  I  am  not 
disposed  to  palliate  it),  it  must  be  admitted  by  all  who  under- 
stand the  nature  and  true  bearing  of  the  question  that  it  had 
been  subjected  to  much  exaggeration.  Permit  me,  sir,  to  re- 
mark that,  notwithstanding  the  importance,  the  difficulty,  and 
delicacy  which  have  been  justly  attributed  to  this  subject,  and 
the  unwillingness  at  all  times  manifested  on  the  part  of  the 
British  Government  to  abandon  or  derogate  from  the  abstract 
right  of  impressing  her  own  seamen  from  on  board  neutral  mer- 
chant vessels,  it  is  very  far  from  being  certain  that  she  has  not 
been  willing  to  enter  into  such  arrangement  with  this  Govern- 
ment as  would  place  the  question  of  impressment  on  a  basis  both 
safe  and  honorable  to  this  nation.  By  a  reference  to  the  cor- 
respondence of  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  with  the  British 
Commissioners,  which  preceded  the  treaty  concluded  by  those 
gentlemen  in  the  year  1806,  but  which  was  unfortunately  re- 
jected by  the  then  President,  it  is  evident  that  the  interest  of 
impressment  was,  in  the  opinion  of  those  gentlemen,  placed  on 
a  footing  well  calculated  to  secure  our  own  seamen  from  the 
abuse  against  which  we  had  complained,  and  against  which  it 
was  our  duty  to  protect  them.  This  opinion  was  not  only  ex- 
pressed in  forcible  and  decisive  language  at  the  time  of  entering 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  187 

into  the  arrangement,  but  repeated  by  Mr.  Monroe  more  than  a 
year  after,  in  a  formal  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Thus,  sir,  as  we  have  conclusive  evidence  of  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  British  Government,  at  one  period  at  least,  to 
advance  considerable  length  toward  an  adjustment  of  this  long- 
contested  question  and  as  we  have  no  evidence  that  different 
principles  and  claims  are  now  asserted  from  those  then  ad- 
vanced, I  think  it  fair  to  conclude  that  it  is  still  in  our  power  to 
put  an  end  to  this  controversy  with  safety  to  our  seamen  and 
advantage  to  the  nation.  Instead,  then,  of  passing  this  bill,  and 
spending  the  blood  and  treasure  of  our  countrymen  in  the  prose- 
cution of  this  war,  I  conceive  it  our  duty  to  make  an  effort  for 
the  sanction  of  our  just  rights,  and  the  restoration  of  peace, 
without  a  further  appeal  to  force.  It  is  my  decided  opinion 
that  such  an  effort,  if  fairly  and  liberally  made  by  this  House, 
and  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government,  would  not  fail  in 
producing  the  desired  effect. 

This  is  what  I  ask  you  now  to  do— pass  a  law  effectually  to 
exclude  all  British  subjects  from  the  public  and  private  mari- 
time service  of  the  United  States;  let  the  law  be  well  guarded 
against  the  possibility  of  violation  or  evasion;  and  let  us  be 
determined  rigidly  to  enforce  it ;  place  this  law  in  the  hands  of 
your  Executive ;  let  him  immediately  appoint  one  or  more  honest, 
able,  independent  commissioners;  give  them  ample  powers  to 
form  a  treaty  or  arrange  the  sole  question  which  is  now  the 
pivot  on  which  this  war  depends.  Do  all  this;  do  it  faithfully, 
and  I  venture  to  predict  you  will  obtain  a  peace  and  secure 
your  just  rights  more  speedily,  more  effectually,  and  more  satis- 
factorily to  the  people  of  this  country  than  by  all  the  military 
operations  in  the  compass  of  your  power. 

Mr.  Pitkin. — On  the  subject  of  impressments,  for  which 
alone  the  war  is  now  to  be  continued,  what,  let  me  ask,  is  the 
principle  for  which  our  Government  contends?  It  is  this,  sir: 
that  the  flag  of  the  merchant  vessel  shall  cover  all  who  sail  un- 
der it ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  our  flag  shall  protect  all  the  for- 
eigners our  merchants  may  think  proper  to  employ  in  their  serv- 
ice, whether  naturalized  or  not.  Before  we  raise  immense 
armies,  before  we  sacrifice  any  more  of  the  lives  of  American 
citizens,  let  us  inquire — 

1st.  Whether  the  principle,  if  yielded  to  us  to-morrow,  would 
benefit  our  native  seamen,  or  would  promote  the  real  permanent 
interests  of  their  country. 

2d.  Whether  there  is  a  probability  of  obtaining  a  recognition 
of  this  principle  by  a  continuance  of  the  war. 


188  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  foreigners  employed  in  our  service  are  those  who  have 
not  been  naturalized,  and  those  who  have  taken  the  benefit  of 
our  naturalization  laws.  The  former  constitute  nearly  the 
whole:  the  latter  class  is  very  inconsiderable.  The  foreigners 
of  the  first  description,  of  course,  are  in  competition  with  our 
native  seamen,  and  either  exclude  them  from  employment,  or 
lessen  the  rate  of  their  wages.  In  this  way,  then,  the  employ- 
ment of  foreign  seamen  is  an  injury  to  our  native  seamen ;  and, 
in  a  national  point  of  view,  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether 
their  employment  subserves  the  permanent  and  solid  interest  of 
the  country. 

Is  it  not,  sir,  of  the  first  importance  to  us,  as  a  commercial 
and  maritime  nation,  especially  when  we  may  be  engaged  in  a 
war  with  a  great  naval  power,  to  be  able  to  have  a  sufficient 
number  of  native  seamen  employed  in  our  service?  Seamen 
who  shall  be  attached  by  every  tie  to  this  country,  and  on  whom 
we  can  depend  for  its  defence  in  time  of  danger ! 

The  situation  in  which  we  now  are  proves  the  correctness,  as 
well  as  the  importance,  of  the  position.  We  are  now  at  war  with 
Great  Britain.  And,  at  the  very  time  when  this  war  was  de- 
clared, thousands  of  British  seamen  who  had  not  been  natural- 
ized in  this  country  were,  and  they  still  continue,  in  our  employ- 
ment. These  seamen  (I  am  speaking,  sir,  of  those  not  natural- 
ized) are  now  claimed  as  British  subjects,  and,  indeed,  by  our 
own  laws,  are  now  considered  as  alien  enemies. 

"With  respect  to  foreigners  who  have  been  naturalized  under 
our  laws,  the  question  is  of  a  more  distinct  nature  and  presents 
greater  difficulties.  We  ought,  undoubtedly,  to  fulfill  all  our 
obligations  toward  them.  I  presume,  however,  the  number  of 
naturalized  British  seamen  now  in  our  employ  does  not  exceed 
two  or  three  hundred.  Shall  we,  sir,  continue  the  war  for  these 
men? 

I  am  aware,  sir,  that,  with  respect  to  impressment  from  our 
merchant  vessels,  abuses  have  happened ;  that,  although  the  right 
of  taking  American  citizens  is  not  claimed,  the  British  com- 
manders have  not  been  scrupulous  whether  they  took  British 
subjects  or  American  citizens.  Sir,  these  abuses  I  never  can, 
and  I  never  will,  justify.  I  am  satisfied,  however,  that  they  have 
been  exaggerated. 

But,  sir,  let  me  ask  if  we  have  not  really  intended  to  protect 
foreign  seamen  under  our  flag,  if  we  have  not  been  guilty  of 
gross  negligence,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  toward  our  native  sea- 
men? 

In  1796  Congress  passed  an  act  for  the  relief  and  protection 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  189 

of  American  seamen.  By  this  act  the  collectors  of  the  several 
ports  were  directed,  on  application,  to  enter  the  names  of  sea- 
men, being  citizens  of  the  United  States,  to  grant  them  certifi- 
cates, in  a  form  given  in  the  act.  Have  those  certificates,  or 
protections,  as  they  are  commonly  called,  been  confined  to  bona 
fide  American  citizens?  No,  sir;  we  cannot,  we  ought  not,  to 
shut  our  eyes  against  facts  too  notorious  to  be  concealed  or  de- 
nied. Under  this  act,  made  expressly  for  the  protection  of 
American  seamen,  every  foreign  seaman,  almost,  at  the  moment 
of  setting  his  feet  on  our  shores,  has  obtained  a  certificate  from 
some  collector  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States;  and, 
with  this  certificate  in  his  pocket,  although  perhaps  a  deserter 
from  his  own  government,  he  enters  a  public  or  private  vessel 
as  an  American  seaman.  Not  only  have  these  protections  been 
thus  obtained  by  fraud  and  perjury,  but  they  have  also,  long 
since,  been  an  object  of  barter ;  they  have  been  bought  and  sold, 
and  transferred  from  one  to  another,  not  only  in  this  country, 
but  in  foreign  countries.  When  we  ourselves  place  no  confidence 
in  these  certificates,  when  we  know  that  they  are  thus  obtained 
by  fraud  and  perjury,  can  we  expect  that  foreign  nations  will 
give  credit  to  them?  Instead  of  being  a  shield  and  protection 
to  the  real  American  sailor,  they  have  become  a  dangerous 
weapon  of  offence. 

Mr.  Quincy. — When  war  against  Great  Britain  was  proposed 
at  the  last  session  there  were  thousands  in  these  United  States, 
and  I  confess  to  you  I  was  myself  among  the  number,  who  be- 
lieved not  one  word  of  the  matter.  I  put  my  trust  in  the  old- 
fashioned  notions  of  common  sense  and  common  prudence. 
That  a  people  which  had  been  more  than  twenty  years  at  peace 
should  enter  upon  hostilities  against  a  people  which  had  been 
twenty  years  at  war ;  that  a  nation  whose  army  and  navy  were 
little  more  than  nominal  should  engage  in  a  war  with  a  nation 
possessing  one  of  the  best  appointed  armies  and  the  most  pow- 
erful marine  on  the  globe;  that  a  country  to  which  neutrality 
had  been  a  perpetual  harvest  should  throw  that  great  blessing 
away  for  a  controversy  in  which  nothing  was  to  be  gained  and 
everything  valuable  put  in  jeopardy ;  from  these,  and  innumer- 
able like  considerations,  the  idea  seemed  so  absurd  that  I  never 
once  entertained  it  as  possible.  And  now,  after  war  has  been 
declared,  the  whole  affair  seems  so  extraordinary  and  so  utterly 
irreconcilable  to  any  previous  suggestions  of  wisdom  and  duty 
that  I  know  not  what  to  make  of  it  or  how  to  believe  it.  Even 
at  this  moment  my  mind  is  very  much  in  the  state  of  certain 
Pennsylvania  Germans,  of  whom  I  have  heard  it  asserted  that 


190  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

they  are  taught  to  believe,  by  their  political  leaders,  and  do  at 
this  moment  consider  the  allegation,  that  war  is  at  present  exist- 
ing between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  to  be  a  "Fed- 
eral falsehood.' ' 

It  was  just  so  with  respect  to  the  invasion  of  Canada.  I 
heard  of  it  last  June.  I  laughed  at  the  idea,  as  did  multitudes 
of  others,  as  an  attempt  too  absurd  for  serious  examination.  I 
was  in  this  case  again  beset  by  common  sense  and  common  pru- 
dence. That  the  United  States  should  precipitate  itself  upon 
the  unoffending  people  of  that  neighboring  colony,  unmindful 
of  all  previously  subsisting  amities,  because  the  parent  state, 
three  thousand  miles  distant,  had  violated  some  of  our  com- 
mercial rights;  that  we  should  march  inland,  to  defend  our 
ships  and  seamen ;  that  with  raw  troops,  hastily  collected,  miser- 
ably appointed,  and  destitute  of  discipline,  we  should  invade  a 
country  defended  by  veteran  forces,  at  least  equal,  in  point  of 
numbers,  to  the  invading  army;  that  bounty  should  be  offered 
and  proclamations  issued,  inviting  the  subjects  of  a  foreign 
power  to  treason  and  rebellion,  under  the  influences  of  a  quar- 
ter of  the  country  upon  which  a  retort  of  the  same  nature  was 
so  obvious,  so  easy,  and,  in  its  consequences,  so  awful ;  in  every 
aspect  the  design  seemed  so  fraught  with  danger  and  disgrace 
that  it  appeared  absolutely  impossible  that  it  should  be  seri- 
ously entertained.  Those,  however,  who  reasoned  after  this 
manner  were,  as  the  event  proved,  mistaken.  The  war  was  de- 
clared. Canada  was  invaded.  We  were  in  haste  to  plunge  into 
these  great  difficulties,  and  we  have  now  reason,  as  well  as 
leisure  enough,  for  regret  and  repentance. 

The  great  mistake  of  all  those  who  reasoned  concerning  the 
war  and  the  invasion  of  Canada,  and  concluded  that  it  was  im- 
possible that  either  should  be  seriously  intended,  resulted  from 
this,  that  they  never  took  into  consideration  the  connection  of 
both  those  events  with  the  great  election  for  the  chief  magis- 
tracy which  was  then  pending.  It  never  was  sufficiently  con- 
sidered by  them  that  plunging  into  war  with  Great  Britain  was 
among  the  conditions  on  which  the  support  for  the  Presidency 
was  made  dependent.  They  did  not  understand  that  an  invasion 
of  Canada  was  to  be  in  truth  only  a  mode  of  carrying  on  an 
electioneering  campaign.  But  since  events  have  explained 
political  purposes  there  is  no  difficulty  in  seeing  the  connections 
between  projects  and  interests.  It  is  now  apparent  to  the  most 
mole-sighted  how  a  nation  may  be  disgraced,  and  yet  a  cabinet 
attain  its  desired  honors.  All  is  clear.  A  country  may  be 
ruined  in  making  an  Administration  happy, 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  191 

Concerning  the  invasion  of  Canada  as  a  means  of  carrying 
on  the  subsisting  war,  it  is  my  duty  to  speak  plainly  and  de- 
cidedly, not  only  because  I  herein  express  my  own  opinions  upon 
the  subject,  but,  as  I  conscientiously  believe,  the  sentiments  also 
of  a  very  great  majority  of  that  whole  section  of  country  in 
which  I  have  the  happiness  to  reside.  I  say  then,  sir,  that  I 
consider  the  invasion  of  Canada  as  a  means  of  carrying  on  this 
war  as  cruel,  wanton,  senseless,  and  wicked. 

You  will  easily  understand,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  this  very  state- 
ment of  opinion,  that  I  am  not  one  of  that  class  of  politicians 
which  has  for  so  many  years  predominated  in  the  world  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic.  You  will  readily  believe  that  I  am  not  one 
of  those  who  worship  in  that  temple  where  Condorcet  is  the 
high  priest  and  Machiavel  the  God.  With  such  politicians  the 
end  always  sanctifies  the  means;  the  least  possible  good  to 
themselves  perfectly  justifies,  according  to  their  creed,  the  in- 
flicting the  greatest  possible  evil  upon  others.  In  the  judg- 
ment of  such  men,  if  a  corrupt  ministry  at  three  thousand  miles' 
distance  shall  have  done  them  an  injury,  it  is  an  ample  cause  to 
visit  with  desolation  a  peaceable  and  unoffending  race  of  men, 
their  neighbors,  who  happen  to  be  associated  with  that  ministry 
by  ties  of  mere  political  independence.  What  though  these 
colonies  be  so  remote  from  the  sphere  of  the  questions  in  con- 
troversy that  their  ruin  or  prosperity  could  have  no  possible  in- 
fluence upon  the  result  ?  What  though  their  cities  offer  no  plun- 
der? What  though  their  conquest  can  yield  no  glory?  In 
their  ruin  there  is  revenge.  And  revenge  to  such  politicians  is 
the  sweetest  of  all  morsels.  With  such  men  neither  I  nor  the 
people  of  that  section  of  country  in  which  I  reside  hold  any 
communion.  There  is  between  us  and  them  no  one  principle  of 
sympathy  either  in  motive  or  action. 

That  wise,  moral,  reflecting  people,  which  constitute  the 
great  mass  of  the  population  of  Massachusetts — indeed,  of  all 
New  England — look  for  the  sources  of  their  political  duties  no- 
where else  than  in  those  fountains  from  which  spring  their 
moral  duties.  According  to  their  estimate  of  human  life  and 
its  obligations,  both  political  and  moral  duties  emanate  from 
the  nature  of  things,  and  from  the  essential  and  eternal  relations 
which  subsist  among  them.  True  it  is  that  a  state  of  war  gives 
the  right  to  seize  and  appropriate  the  property  and  territories 
of  an  enemy.  True  it  is  that  the  colonies  of  a  foreign  power 
are  viewed,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  in  the  light  of  its 
property.  But,  in  estimating  the  propriety  of  carrying  deso- 
lation into  the  peaceful  abodes  of  their  neighbors,  the  people  of 


192  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

New  England  will  not  limit  their  contemplation  to  the  mere 
circumstance  of  abstract  right,  nor  ask  what  lawyers  and  juris- 
prudists  have  written  or  said,  as  if  this  was  conclusive  upon  the 
subject.  That  people  are  much  addicted  to  think  for  themselves, 
and,  in  canvassing  the  propriety  of  such  an  invasion,  they  will 
consider  the  actual  condition  of  those  colonies,  their  natural 
relations  to  us,  and  the  effect  which  their  conquest  and  ruin  will 
have,  not  only  upon  the  people  of  those  colonies,  but  upon  them- 
selves and  their  own  liberties  and  Constitution.  And  above  all, 
what  I  know  will  seem  strange  to  some  of  those  who  hear  me, 
they  will  not  forget  to  apply  to  a  case  occurring  between  na- 
tions, as  far  as  is  practicable,  that  heaven-descended  rule  which 
the  great  author  and  founder  of  their  religion  has  given  them 
for  the  regulation  of  their  conduct  toward  each  other.  They  will 
consider  it  the  duty  of  these  United  States  to  act  toward  those 
colonies  as  they  would  wish  those  colonies  to  act,  in  exchange 
of  circumstances,  toward  these  United  States. 

The  actual  condition  of  those  colonies,  and  the  relation  in 
which  they  stood  to  the  United  States  antecedent  to  the  declara- 
tion of  war,  were  of  this  nature.  Those  colonies  had  no  con- 
nection with  the  questions  in  dispute  between  us  and  their 
parent  state.  They  had  done  us  no  injury.  They  meditated 
none  to  us.  Between  the  inhabitants  of  those  colonies  and  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  the  most  friendly  and  mutually 
useful  intercourse  subsisted.  The  borderers  on  this,  and  those 
on  the  other  side  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  of  the  boundary  line, 
scarcely  realized  that  they  were  subjects  of  different  govern- 
ments. They  interchanged  expressions  and  acts  of  civility.  In- 
termarriages took  place  among  them.  The  Canadian  sometimes 
settled  in  the  United  States;  sometimes  our  citizens  emigrated 
to  Canada. 

After  the  declaration  of  war,  had  they  any  disposi- 
tion to  assail  us?  We  have  the  reverse  expressly  in  evidence. 
They  desired  nothing  so  much  as  to  keep  perfect  the  then  sub- 
sisting relations  of  amity.  Would  the  conquest  of  those  colonies 
shake  the  policy  of  the  British  cabinet !  No  man  has  shown  it. 
On  the  contrary,  nothing  was  more  obvious  than  that  an  invasion 
of  Canada  must  strengthen  the  ministry  of  Great  Britain,  by 
the  excitement  and  sympathy  which  would  be  occasioned  in 
the  people  of  that  country  in  consequence  of  the  sufferings  of 
the  innocent  inhabitants  of  those  colonies,  on  account  of  a  dis- 
pute in  which  they  had  no  concern,  and  of  which  they  had 
scarcely  a  knowledge.  All  this  was  anticipated — all  this  was 
frequently  urged  to  this  House,  at  the  last  and  preceding  ses- 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  193 

sions,  as  the  necessary  effect  of  such  a  measure.  The  event  has 
justified  those  predictions.  The  late  elections  in  Great  Britain 
have  terminated  in  the  complete  triumph  of  the  friends  of  the 
British  ministry. 

As  there  was  no  direct  advantage  to  be  hoped  from  the  con- 
quest of  Canada,  so  also  there  was  none  incidental.  Plunder 
there  was  none — at  least,  none  which  would  pay  the  cost  of  the 
conquest.  Glory  there  was  none.  Could  seven  millions  of  people 
obtain  glory  by  precipitating  themselves  upon  half  a  million, 
and  trampling  them  into  the  dust?  A  giant  obtain  glory  by 
crushing  a  pigmy?  That  giant  must  have  a  pigmy's  spirit  who 
could  reap,  or  hope,  glory  from  such  an  achievement. 

Show  any  advantage  which  justifies  that  dreadful  vial  of 
wrath  which,  if  the  intention  of  the  American  Cabinet  had  been 
fulfilled,  would,  at  this  day,  have  been  poured  out  upon  the 
heads  of  the  Canadians.  It  is  not  owing  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  the  American  Administration  if  the  bones  of  the  Canadians 
are  not  at  this  hour  mingled  with  the  ashes  of  their  habitations. 
It  is  easy  enough  to  make  an  excuse  for  any  purpose.  When 
a  victim  is  destined  to  be  immolated  every  hedge  presents  sticks 
for  the  sacrifice.  The  lamb  who  stands  at  the  mouth  of  the 
stream  will  always  trouble  the  water,  if  you  take  the  account  of 
the  wolf  who  stands  at  the  source  of  it.  But  show  a  good  to  us 
bearing  any  proportion  to  the  multiplied  evils  proposed  to  be 
visited  upon  them.  There  is  none.  Never  was  there  an  invasion 
of  any  country  worse  than  this,  in  point  of  moral  principle, 
since  the  invasion  of  the  West  Indies  by  the  Buccaneers  or  that 
of  the  United  States  by  Captain  Kidd.  Indeed,  both  Kidd  and 
the  Buccaneers  had  more  apology  for  their  deed  than  the  Ameri- 
can Cabinet.  They  had  at  least  the  hope  of  plunder;  but  in 
this  case  there  is  not  even  the  poor  refuge  of  cupidity.  We 
have  heard  great  lamentations  about  the  disgrace  of  our  arms 
on  the  frontier.  Why,  sir,  the  disgrace  of  our  arms  on  the  fron- 
tier *  is  terrestrial  glory  in  comparison  with  the  disgrace  of  the 
attempt.  The  whole  atmosphere  rings  with  the  utterance,  from 
the  other  side  of  the  House,  of  this  word  " glory' ' — " glory* f  in 
connection  with  this  invasion.  What  glory?  Is  it  the  glory 
of  the  tiger,  which  lifts  his  jaws,  all  foul  and  bloody,  from  the 
bowels  of  his  victim,  and  roars  for  his  companions  of  the  wood 
to  come  and  witness  his  prowess  and  his  spoils?  Such  is  the 
glory  of  Genghis  Khan  and  of  Bonaparte.  Be  such  glory  far, 
very  far,  from  my  country.  Never,  never  may  it  be  accursed 
with  such  fame. 

1  General   Hull  had  surrendered  Detroit  without  resistance  on  August 
16,  1812. 


194  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

"Fame    is    no    plant    that    grows    on    mortal    soil, 
Nor    in   the   glistering   foil 

Set    off    to    the    world,    nor    in    broad    rumor    lies, 
But  lives   and  spreads   aloft,  by  those  pure   eyes, 
And    perfect    witness    of    all-judging    Jove, 
As   he  pronounces  lastly  on    each   deed." 
May   such   fame    as   this   be   my    country's    meed! 

The  army  which  advances  to  the  walls  of  Quebec,  in  the 
present  condition  of  Canadian  preparation,  must  be  veteran. 
And  a  veteran  army,  under  a  popular  leader,  flushed  with  vic- 
tory, each  individual  realizing  that  while  the  body  remains  com- 
bined he  may  be  .something,  and  possibly  very  great ;  that,  if 
dissolved,  he  sinks  into  insignificance ;  will  not  be  disbanded  by 
vote.  They  will  consult  with  one  another,  and  with  their  beloved 
chieftain,  upon  this  subject;  and  not  trouble  themselves  about 
the  advice  of  the  old  people  who  are  knitting  and  weaving  in 
the  chimney  corners  at  Washington.  Let  the  American  people 
receive  this  as  an  undoubted  truth,  which  experience  will  verify. 
Whoever  plants  the  American  standard  on  the  walls  of  Quebec 
conquers  it  for  himself,  and  not  for  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  Whoever  lives  to  see  that  event — may  my  head  be  low 
in  the  dust  before  it  happen ! — will  witness  a  dynasty  established 
in  that  country  by  the  sword.  He  will  see  a  king  or  an  emperor, 
dukedoms,  and  earldoms,  and  baronies,  distributed  to  the  offi- 
cers, and  knights'  fees  bestowed  on  the  soldiery.  Such  an  army 
will  not  trouble  itself  about  geographical  lines  in  portioning  out 
the  divisions  of  its  new  empire ;  and  will  run  the  parallels  of  its 
power  by  other  steel  than  that  of  the  compass.  When  that  event 
happens  the  people  of  New  England,  if  they  mean  to  be  free, 
must  have  a  force  equal  to  defend  themselves  against  such  an 
army.  And  a  military  force  equal  to  this  object  will  itself  be 
able  to  enslave  the  country. 

Mr.  Speaker — when  I  contemplate  the  character  and  conse- 
quences of  this  invasion  of  Canada;  when  I  reflect  upon  its 
criminality  and  its  danger  to  the  peace  and  liberty  of  this  once 
happy  country;  I  thank  the  great  Author  and  Source  of  all 
virtue  that  through  His  grace  that  section  of  country  in  which 
I  have  the  happiness  to  reside  is,  in  so  great  a  degree,  free  from 
the  iniquity  of  this  transgression.  I  speak  it  with  pride,  the 
people  of  that  section  have  done  what  they  could  to  vindicate 
themselves  and  their  children  from  the  burden  of  this  sin. 
That  whole  section  has  risen,  almost  as  one  man,  for  the  purpose 
of  driving  from  power,  by  one  great  constitutional  effort,1  the 
guilty  authors  of  this  war.    If  they  have  failed  it  has  not  been 

lThe  presidential  election. 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  195 

through  the  want  of  will  or  of  exertion,  but  in  consequence  of 
the  weakness  of  their  political  power.  When  in  the  usual  course 
of  Divine  Providence,  who  punishes  nations  as  well  as  indi- 
viduals, His  destroying  angel  shall  on  this  account  pass  over 
this  country — and  sooner  or  later,  pass  it  will — I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  hope  that  over  New  England  his  hand  will  be  stayed. 
Our  souls  are  not  steeped  in  the  blood  which  has  been  shed  in 
this  war.  The  spirits  of  the  unhappy  men  who  have  been  sent 
to  an  untimely  audit  have  borne  to  the  bar  of  divine  justice  no 
accusations  against  us. 

This  opinion,  concerning  the  principles  of  this  invasion  of 
Canada,  is  not  peculiar  to  me.  I  believe  this  sentiment  is  enter- 
tained, without  distinction  of  parties,  by  almost  all  the  moral 
sense,  and  nine-tenths  of  the  intelligence,  of  the  whole  Northern 
section  of  the  United  States.  I  know  that  men  from  that  quarter 
of  the  country  will  tell  you  differently.  Stories  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent kind  are  brought  by  all  those  who  come  trooping  to 
Washington  for  place,  appointments,  and  emoluments ;  men  who 
will  say  anything  to  please  the  ear,  or  do  anything  to  please  the 
eye  of  majesty,  for  the  sake  of  those  fat  contracts  and  gifts 
which  it  scatters;  men  whose  fathers,  brothers,  and  cousins  are 
provided  for  by  the  departments;  whose  full-grown  children 
are  at  suck  at  the  money-distilling  breasts  of  the  treasury;  the 
little  men  who  sigh  after  great  offices;  those  who  have  judge- 
ships in  hand  or  judgeships  in  promise;  toads  that  live  upon 
the  vapor  of  the  palace,  that  swallow  great  men's  spittle  at  the 
levees;  that  stare  and  wonder  at  all  the  fine  sights  which  they 
see  there ;  and  most  of  all  wonder  at  themselves — how  they  got 
there  to  see  them.  These  men  will  tell  you  that  New  England 
applauds  this  invasion. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  look  at  the  elections.  What  is  the  lan- 
guage they  speak?  The  present  tenant  of  the  chief  magistracy 
rejected,  by  that  whole  section  of  country,  with  the  exception 
of  a  single  State  unanimously.  And  for  whom?  In  favor  of  a 
man 1  out  of  the  circle  of  his  own  State  without  much  influence, 
and  personally  almost  unknown.  In  favor  of  a  man  against 
whom  the  prevailing  influence  in  New  England  had  previously 
strong  political  prejudices;  and  with  whom,  at  the  time  of  giv- 
ing him  their  support,  they  had  no  political  understanding;  in 
favor  of  a  man  whose  merits,  whatever  in  other  respects  they 
might  be,  were  brought  into  notice,  in  the  first  instance,  chiefly 
so  far  as  that  election  was  concerned,  by  their  opinion  of  the 
utter  want  of  merit  of  the  man  whose  reelection  they  opposed. 

*De  Witt  Clinton. 


196  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

I  have  taken  some  pains  to  learn  the  sentiments  which  pre- 
vail in  New  England,  and  particularly  among  its  yeomanry, 
the  pride  and  the  hope  of  that  country.  I  have  conversed  with 
men,  resting  on  their  spades  and  leaning  on  the  handles  of  their 
ploughs,  while  they  relaxed  for  a  moment  from  the  labor  by 
which  they  support  their  families,  and  which  gives  such  a  hardi- 
hood and  character  to  their  virtues.  They  asked — "What  do 
we  want  of  Canada?  We  have  land  enough.  Do  we  want  plun- 
der? There  is  not  enough  of  that  to  pay  the  cost  of  getting  it. 
Are  our  ocean  rights  there  ?  Or  is  it  there  our  seamen  are  held 
in  captivity?  Are  new  States  desired?  We  have  plenty  of 
those  already.  Are  they  to  be  held  as  conquered  territories? 
This  will  require  an  army  there.  Then,  to  be  safe,  we  must  have 
an  army  here.  And  with  a  standing  army  what  security  for  our 
liberties  ?" 

These  are  no  fictitious  reasonings.  They  are  the  suggestions 
I  doubt  not  of  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  our  hardy 
New  England  yeomanry ;  men  who,  when  their  country  calls,  at 
any  wise  and  real  exigency,  will  start  from  their  native  soils 
and  throw  their  shields  over  their  liberties,  like  the  soldiers  of 
Cadmus,  "armed  in  complete  steer';  yet  men  who  have  heard 
the  winding  of  your  horn  to  the  Canada  campaign  with  the 
same  apathy  and  indifference  with  which  they  would  hear  in 
the  streets  the  trilling  of  a  jewsharp  or  the  twirring  of  a  banjo. 

Mr.  Grundy. — At  the  last  session  of  Congress,  when  every 
hope  of  obtaining  justice  in  any  other  way  was  lost,  the  United 
States  declared  war,  not  to  procure  a  repeal  of  the  Orders  in 
Council  only,  but  to  obtain  redress  for  the  unjust  spoliations 
which  had  been  committed  on  the  property  of  American  citi- 
zens, and  to  cause  Great  Britain  to  cease  the  practice  of  im- 
pressment. Other  causes  of  irritation  existed,  but  these  were 
the  prominent  causes  of  the  war.  You  are  now  asked  to  lay 
down  the  sword  before  you  have  obtained  any  of  the  objects  of 
the  war,  except  the  abolition  of  these  obnoxious  orders.  I  re- 
quest gentlemen  to  reflect  whether  this  is  not,  in  point  of  fact, 
an  abandonment  of  the  other  points  in  dispute?  Do  you  not, 
by  ceasing  to  prosecute  the  war  which  is  already  commenced, 
declare,  in  the  strongest  possible  terms,  that  you  will  not  make 
war  for  the  injuries  which  remain  unredressed?  Can  any  man 
persuade  himself  that  you  will  obtain  that  by  negotiation  for 
which  you  have  determined  you  will  not  fight!  and  that,  too, 
from  a  nation  at  all  times  disposed  to  depress  this  growing 
country?  That  politician  must  have  a  very  imperfect  knowl- 
edge of  the  considerations  which  influence  all  cabinets  who  does 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  197 

not  know  that  the  strongest  inducement  which  can  be  brought 
to  operate  in  favor  of  an  injured  nation  is  the  apprehension  of 
retaliation,  or  fear  of  war,  entertained  by  the  other  party. 

If  you  now  say  that  you  will  not  prosecute  the  war,  the 
enemy  must  view  it  as  a  decision  pronounced  by  this  Govern- 
ment that  war  shall  not  be  waged  by  the  American  nation  for 
the  impressment  of  her  citizens,  or  for  depredations  committed 
on  commerce.  It  might  as  well  be  said  in  plain,  intelligible 
language  that  the  ocean  is  to  be  abandoned  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  except  so  far  as  depends  on  the  will  of  Great 
Britain.  If  both  the  property  and  liberty  of  American  citizens 
on  the  ocean  are  subject  to  her  disposal,  you  cease  to  possess  the 
rights  of  a  sovereign  and  independent  nation.  For  my  own 
part,  if  we  have  the  right  to  claim  security  for  the  liberty  and 
property  of  our  citizens  against  that  nation,  of  which  no  man 
dare  express  a  doubt,  I  am  for  asserting  it  until  the  object  is 
attained,  or  the  ability  of  this  nation  fails ;  of  the  latter  I  have 
no  fear. 

It  is  pretended  that  this  Government  is  not  desirous  of 
peace,  and  that  this  is  a  war  of  conquest  and  ambition.  I  beg 
gentlemen  to  refrain  from  making  statements  which  they  them- 
selves do  not  believe.  After  the  declaration  of  war,  what  has 
been  the  conduct  of  the  Executive?  Through  Mr.  Russell,  our 
charge  des  affaires  at  London,  they  have  offered  to  conclude 
an  armistice  on  terms  which  would  remove  every  pretext  for 
complaint  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  He  proposed  that  this 
country  should  exclude  from  her  service  British  seamen.  It  is 
true  that  Lord  Castlereagh  urged  Mr.  Russell's  want  of  powers, 
and  stated  that  the  American  Congress  alone  could  make  the 
necessary  provisions  on  that  subject.  If,  however,  sincerity  had 
existed  with  the  British  ministry,  a  temporary  arrangement 
could  have  been  made  by  which  hostilities  would  have  been  sus- 
pended until  the  legitimate  authorities  of  this  country  could  have 
expressed  an  opinion. 

Mr.  Clay. — If  gentlemen  would  only  reserve  for  their  own 
government  half  the  sensibility  which  is  indulged  for  that  of 
Great  Britain,  they  would  find  much  less  to  condemn.  Restric- 
tion after  restriction  has  been  tried;  negotiation  has  been  re- 
sorted to  until  longer  to  have  negotiated  would  have  been  dis- 
graceful. "While  these  peaceful  experiments  are  undergoing  a 
trial,  what  is  the  conduct  of  the  opposition?  They  are  the 
champions  of  war ;  the  proud,  the  spirited,  the  sole  repository  of 
the  nation 's  honor ;  the  exclusive  men  of  vigor  and  energy.  The 
Administration,  on  the  contrary,  is  weak,  feeble,  and  pusillani- 


198  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

mous — "incapable  of  being  kicked  into  a  war."  The  maxim, 
"not  a  cent  for  tribute,  millions  for  defence/'  is  loudly  pro- 
claimed. Is  the  Administration  for  negotiation?  The  Opposi- 
tion is  tired,  sick,  disgusted  with  negotiation.  They  want  to 
draw  the  sword  and  avenge  the  nation's  wrongs.  When,  at 
length,  foreign  nations,  perhaps  emboldened  by  the  very  op- 
position here  made,  refused  to  listen  to  the  amicable  appeals 
made,  and  repeated  and  reiterated  by  the  Administration,  to 
their  justice  and  to  their  interests;  when,  in  fact,  war  with  one 
of  them  became  identified  with  our  independence  and  our  sov- 
ereignty, and  it  was  no  longer  possible  to  abstain  from  it,  be- 
hold the  opposition  become  the  friends  of  peace  and  of  com- 
merce. They  tell  you  of  the  calamities  of  war;  its  tragical 
events;  the  squandering  away  of  your  resources;  the  waste  of 
the  public  treasure,  and  the  spilling  of  innocent  blood.  They 
tell  you  that  honor  is  an  illusion !  Now  we  see  them  exhibiting 
the  terrific  forms  of  the  roaring  king  of  the  forest!  Now  the 
meekness  and  humility  of  the  lamb !  They  are  for  war,  and  no 
restrictions,  when  the  Administration  is  for  peace ;  they  are  for 
peace  and  restrictions  when  the  Administration  is  for  war.  You 
find  them,  sir,  tacking  with  every  gale,  displaying  the  colors  of 
every  party,  and  of  all  nations,  steady  only  in  one  unalterable 
purpose :  to  steer,  if  possible,  into  the  haven  of  power. 

During  all  this  time  the  parasites  of  opposition  do  not  fail 
by  cunning  sarcasm  or  sly  innuendo  to  throw  out  the  idea  of 
French  influence,  which  is  known  to  be  false ;  which  ought  to  be 
met  in  one  manner  only,  and  that  is  by  the  lie  direct.  The  Ad- 
ministration of  this  country  devoted  to  foreign  influence !  The 
Administration  of  this  country  subservient  to  France!  Great 
God !  how  is  it  so  influenced  f  By  what  ligament,  on  what  basis, 
on  what  possible  foundation,  does  it  rest  ?  Is  it  on  similarity  of 
language  ?  No !  we  speak  different  tongues ;  we  speak  the  Eng- 
lish language.  On  the  resemblance  of  our  laws!  No!  the 
sources  of  our  jurisprudence  spring  from  another  and  a  different 
country.  On  commercial  intercourse?  No!  we  have  compara- 
tively none  with  France.  Is  it  from  the  correspondence  in  the 
genius  of  the  two  governments?  No!  here  alone  is  the  liberty 
of  man  secure  from  the  inexorable  despotism  which  everywhere 
else  tramples  it  under  foot.  Where,  then,  is  the  ground  of  such 
an  influence  ?  But,  sir,  I  am  insulting  you  by  arguing  on  such 
a  subject.  Yet,  preposterous  and  ridiculous  as  the  insinuation  is, 
it  is  propagated  with  so  much  industry  that  there  are  persons 
found  foolish  and  credulous  enough  to  believe  it.  You  will,  no 
doubt,  think  it  incredible  (but  I  have  nevertheless  been  told  the 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  199 

fact)  that  an  honorable  member  of  this  House,  now  in  my  eye, 
recently  lost  his  election  by  the  circulation  of  a  story  in  his 
district  that  he  was  the  first  cousin  of  the  Emperor  Napoleon. 
The  proof  of  the  charge  was  rested  on  a  statement  of  facts 
which  was  undoubtedly  true.  The  gentleman  in  question  it  was 
alleged  had  married  a  connection  of  the  lady  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  who  was  the  intimate  friend  of  Thomas 
Jefferson,  late  President  of  the  United  States,  who,  some  years 
ago,  was  in  the  habit  of  wearing  red  French  breeches.  Now, 
taking  these  premises  as  established,  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  are 
too  good  a  logician  not  to  see  that  the  conclusion  necessarily  fol- 
lowed ! 

Throughout  the  period  he  had  been  speaking  of  the  opposi- 
tion had  been  distinguished,  amid  all  its  veerings  and  changes, 
by  another  inflexible  feature — the  application  of  every  vile 
epithet,  which  our  rich  language  affords,  to  Bonaparte.  He  has 
been  compared  to  every  hideous  monster  and  beast,  from  that 
of  the  Revelations  to  the  most  insignificant  quadruped.  He  has 
been  called  the  scourge  of  mankind,  the  destroyer  of  Europe, 
the  great  robber,  the  infidel,  and — Heaven  knows  by  what  other 
names.  Really,  gentlemen  remind  me  of  an  obscure  lady  in  a 
city,  not  very  far  off,  who  also  took  it  into  her  head,  in  conver- 
sation with  an  accomplished  French  gentleman,  to  talk  of  the 
affairs  of  Europe.  She,  too,  spoke  of  the  destruction  of  the 
balance  of  power,  stormed  and  raged  about  the  insatiable  am- 
bition of  the  emperor;  called  him  the  curse  of  mankind — the 
destroyer  of  Europe.  The  Frenchman  listened  to  her  with  per- 
fect patience,  and,  when  she  had  ceased,  said  to  her,  with  inef- 
fable politeness:  " Madam,  it  would  give  my  master,  the  em- 
peror, infinite  pain  if  he  knew  how  hardly  you  thought  of  him. ' ' 

Sir,  gentlemen  appear  to  me  to  forget  that  they  stand  on 
American  soil;  that  they  are  not  in  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons, but  in  the  Chamber  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States ;  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  affairs  of 
Europe — the  partition  of  territory  and  sovereignty  there — ex- 
cept in  so  far  as  these  things  affect  the  interests  of  our  own 
country.  Gentlemen  transform  themselves  into  the  Burkes, 
Chathams,  and  Pitts,  of  another  country,  and  forgetting,  from 
honest  zeal,  the  interests  of  America,  engage,  with  European 
sensibility,  in  the  discussion  of  European  interests.  If  gentle- 
men ask  me  if  I  do  not  view  with  regret  and  sorrow  the  concen- 
tration of  such  vast  power  in  the  hands  of  Bonaparte,  I  reply 
that  I  do.  I  regret  to  see  the  Emperor  of  China  holding  such 
immense  sway  over  the  fortunes  of  millions  of  our  species.     I 


200  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

regret  to  see  Great  Britain  possessing  so  uncontrolled  a  com- 
mand over  all  the  waters  of  our  globe.  And  if  I  had  the  ability 
to  distribute  among  the  nations  of  Europe  their  several  portions 
of  power  and  of  sovereignty,  I  would  say  that  Holland  should 
be  resuscitated  and  given  the  weight  she  enjoyed  in  the  days  of 
her  De  Witts.  I  would  confine  France  within  her  natural  boun- 
daries— the  Alps,  the  Pyrenees,  and  the  Rhine — and  make  her 
a  secondary  naval  power  only.  I  would  abridge  the  British 
maritime  power,  raise  Prussia  and  Austria  to  first-rate  powers, 
and  preserve  the  integrity  of  the  Empire  of  Russia.  But  these 
are  speculations.  I  look  at  the  political  transactions  of  Europe, 
with  the  single  exception  of  their  possible  bearing  upon  us,  as 
I  do  at  the  history  of  other  countries  or  other  times.  I  do  not 
survey  them  with  half  the  interest  that  I  do  the  movements  in 
South  America.  Our  political  relation  is  much  less  important 
than  it  is  supposed  to  be.  I  have  no  fears  of  French  or  English 
subjugation.  If  we  are  united  we  are  too  powerful  for  the 
mightiest  nation  in  Europe,  or  all  Europe  combined.  If  we 
are  separated,  and  torn  asunder,  we  shall  become  an  easy  prey 
to  the  weakest  of  them.  In  the  latter  dreadful  contingency 
our  country  will  not  be  worth  preserving. 

In  one  respect  there  is  a  remarkable  difference  between  Ad- 
ministration and  the  Opposition — it  is  in  a  sacred  regard  for 
personal  liberty.  When  out  of  power,  my  political  friends  op- 
posed the  violation  of  the  freedom  of  the  press,  in  the  sedition 
law;  they  opposed  the  more  insidious  attack  upon  the  freedom 
of  the  person,  under  the  imposing  garb  of  an  alien  law.  The 
party  now  in  opposition,  then  in  power,  passed  those  two  laws. 
True  to  our  principles,  we  are  now  struggling  for  the  liberty  of 
our  seamen  against  foreign  oppression.  True  to  theirs,  they 
oppose  the  war  for  this  object.  They  have  indeed  lately  affected 
tender  solicitude  for  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  talk  of  the 
danger  of  standing  armies,  and  the  burden  of  taxes.  But  it  is 
evident  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  they  speak  in  a  foreign 
idiom.  Their  brogue  betrays  that  it  is  not  their  vernacular 
tongue.  What!  the  opposition,  who  in  1798  and  1799  could 
raise  a  useless  army  to  fight  an  enemy  three  thousand  miles 
distant  from  us,  alarmed  at  the  existence  of  one  raised  for  a 
known  specified  object — the  attack  of  the  adjoining  provinces 
of  the  enemy?  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Quincy] ,  who  assisted  by  his  vote  to  raise  the  army  of  twenty- 
five  thousand,  alarmed  at  the  danger  of  our  liberties  from  this 
very  army! 

I  mean  to  speak  of  another  subject  which  I  never  think  of 


THE    WAR    OF    1812 


201 


but  with  the  most  awful  considerations.  The  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Quincy]  has  entertained  us  with  cabinet 
plots,  presidential  plots,  which  are  conjured  up  in  the  gentle- 
man's own  perturbed  imagination.  I  wish,  sir,  that  another 
plot  of  a  much  more  serious  kind — a  plot  that  aims  at  the  dis- 
memberment of  our  Union — had  only  the  same  imaginary  exis- 
tence. But  no  man  who  had  paid  any  attention  to  the  tone  of 
certain  prints,  and  to  transactions  in  a  particular  quarter  of 


PRESIDENT    MADISON    AND    HIS    SNAPPING    TURTLE 

'  *  To  the  Grave  Go  Sham  Protectors  of  '  Free  Trade  and  Sailors '  Rights ' — 
and  All  the  People  Say  Amen ! ' ' 
From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Public  Library 

the  Union  for  several  years  past,  can  doubt  the  existence  of 
such  a  plot.  The  project  is  not  brought  forward  openly,  with 
a  direct  avowal  of  the  intention.  No,  the  stock  of  good  sense  and 
patriotism  in  that  portion  of  the  country  is  too  great  to  be  un- 
disguisedly  encountered.  It  is  assailed  from  the  masked  bat- 
teries of  friendship  to  peace  and  commerce  on  the  one  side,  and 
by  the  groundless  imputation  of  opposite  propensities  on  the 
other.  The  affections  of  the  people  are  to  be  gradually  under- 
mined. The  project  is  suggested  or  withdrawn;  the  diabolical 
parties  in  this  criminal  tragedy  make  their  appearance  or  exit 
as  the  audience  to  whom  they  address  themselves  are  silent, 
applaud,  or  hiss. 

The  war  was  declared  because  Great  Britain  arrogated  to 


202  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

herself  the  pretension  of  regulating  foreign  trade,  under  the 
delusive  name  of  retaliatory  Orders  in  Council — a  pretension  by 
which  she  undertook  to  proclaim  to  American  enterprise,  * '  Thus 
far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  farther. ' '  Orders  which  she  refused  to 
revoke  after  the  alleged  cause  of  their  enactment  had  ceased; 
because  she  persisted  in  the  act  of  impressing  American  seamen ; 
because  she  had  instigated  the  Indians  to  commit  hostilities 
against  us;  and  because  she  refused  indemnity  for  her  past  in- 
juries upon  our  commerce.  I  throw  out  of  the  question  other 
wrongs.  The  war  in  fact  was  announced,  on  our  part,  to  meet 
the  war  which  she  was  waging  on  her  part.  So  undeniable  were 
the  causes  of  the  war ;  so  powerfully  did  they  address  themselves 
to  the  feelings  of  the  whole  American  people,  that  when  the  bill 
was  pending  before  this  House  gentlemen  in  the  opposition,  al- 
though provoked  to  debate,  would  not,  or  could  not,  utter  one 
syllable  against  it. 

I  am  far  from  acknowledging  that  had  the  Orders  in  Council 
been  repealed,  as  they  have  been,  before  the  war  was  declared, 
the  declaration  would  have  been  prevented.  In  a  body  so  numer- 
ous as  this,  from  which  the  declaration  emanated,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say  with  any  degree  of  certainty  what  would  have  been 
the  effect  of  such  a  repeal.  Each  member  must  answer  for  him- 
self. I  have  no  hesitation,  then,  in  saying  that  I  have  always 
considered  the  impressment  of  American  seamen  as  much  the 
most  serious  aggression.  But,  sir,  how  have  those  Orders  at  last 
been  repealed?  Great  Britain,  it  is  true,  has  intimated  a  will- 
ingness to  suspend  their  practical  operation,  but  she  still  arro- 
gates to  herself  the  right  to  revive  them  upon  certain  contin- 
gencies, of  which  she  constitutes  herself  the  sole  judge.  She 
waives  the  temporary  use  of  the  rod,  but  she  suspends  it  in 
terrorem  over  our  heads.  Supposing  it  was  conceded  to  gentle- 
men than  such  a  repeal  of  the  Orders  in  Council  as  took  place 
on  the  23d  of  June  last,  exceptionable  as  it  is,  being  known 
before  the  war,  would  have  prevented  the  war,  does  it  follow  that 
it  ought  to  induce  us  to  lay  down  our  arms  without  the  redress 
of  any  other  injury  ?  Does  it  follow,  in  all  cases,  that  that  which 
would  have  prevented  the  war  in  the  first  instance  should  termi- 
nate the  war  ?  By  no  means.  It  requires  a  great  struggle  for  a 
nation  prone  to  peace  as  this  is  to  burst  through  its  habits  and 
encounter  the  difficulties  of  war.  Such  a  nation  ought  but 
seldom  to  go  to  war.  When  it  does  it  should  be  for  clear  and 
essential  rights  alone,  and  it  should  firmly  resolve  to  extort,  at 
all  hazards,  their  recognition.  The  war  of  the  Revolution  is  an 
example  of  a  war  begun  for  one  object  and  prosecuted  for  an- 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  203 

other.  It  was  waged  in  its  commencement  against  the  right 
asserted  by  the  parent  country  to  tax  the  colonies.  Then  no  one 
thought  of  absolute  independence.  The  idea  of  independence 
was  repelled.  But  the  British  Government  would  have  relin- 
quished the  principle  of  taxation.  The  founders  of  our  liberties 
saw,  however,  that  there  was  no  security  short  of  independence, 
and  they  achieved  our  independence.  When  nations  are  en- 
gaged in  war  those  rights  in  controversy,  which  are  acknowl- 
edged by  the  treaty  of  peace,  are  abandoned.  And  who  is  pre- 
pared to  say  that  American  seamen  shall  be  surrendered,  the 
victims  to  the  British  principle  of  impressment  ?  And,  sir,  what 
is  this  principle  ?  She  contends  that  she  has  a  right  to  the  ser- 
vices of  her  own  subjects :  that,  in  the  exercise  of  this  right,  she 
may  lawfully  impress  them,  even  although  she  finds  them  in 
our  vessels,  upon  the  high  seas,  without  her  jurisdiction.  Now, 
I  deny  that  she  has  any  right,  without  her  jurisdiction,  to  come 
on  board  our  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  for  any  other  purpose  but 
in  pursuit  of  enemies,  or  their  goods,  or  goods  contraband  of 
war.  But  she  further  contends  that  her  subjects  cannot  re- 
nounce their  allegiance  to  her  and  contract  a  new  obligation  to 
other  sovereigns.  I  do  not  mean  to  go  into  the  general  question 
of  the  right  of  expatriation.  If,  as  is  contended,  all  nations 
deny  it,  all  nations  at  the  same  time  admit  and  practice  the 
right  of  naturalization.  Great  Britain,  in  the  very  case  of  for- 
eign seamen,  imposes  perhaps  fewer  restraints  upon  naturaliza- 
tion than  any  other  nation.  Then,  if  subjects  cannot  break  their 
original  allegiance,  they  may,  according  to  universal  usage, 
contract  a  new  allegiance.  What  is  the  effect  of  this  double 
obligation?  Undoubtedly,  that  the  sovereign  having  possession 
of  the  subject  would  have  a  right  to  the  services  of  the  subject. 
If  he  return  within  the  jurisdiction  of  his  primitive  sovereign 
he  may  resume  his  right  to  his  services,  of  which  the  subject  by 
his  own  act  could  not  divest  himself.  But  his  primitive  sover- 
eign can  have  no  right  to  go  in  quest  of  him,  out  of  his  own 
jurisdiction  into  the  jurisdiction  of  another  sovereign,  or  upon 
the  high  seas,  where  there  exists  either  no  jurisdiction,  or  it 
belongs  to  the  nation  owning  the  ship  navigating  them.  But, 
sir,  this  discussion  is  altogether  useless.  It  is  not  to  the  British 
principle,  objectionable  as  it  is,  that  we  are  alone  to  look;  it  is 
to  her  practice — no  matter  what  guise  she  puts  on.  It  is  in  vain 
to  assert  the  inviolability  of  the  obligation  of  allegiance.  It  is 
in  vain  to  set  up  the  plea  of  necessity,  and  to  allege  that  she 
cannot  exist  without  the  impressment  of  her  seamen.  The  truth 
is,  she  comes,  by  her  press  gangs,  on  board  of  our  vessels,  seizes 


204  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

our  native  seamen,  as  well  as  naturalized,  and  drags  them  into 
her  service.  It  is  the  case,  then,  of  the  assertion  of  an  errone- 
ous principle,  and  a  practice  not  conformable  to  the  principle — 
a  principle  which,  if  it  were  theoretically  right,  must  be  forever 
practically  wrong.  If  Great  Britain  desires  a  mark  by  which 
she  can  know  her  own  subjects,  let  her  give  them  an  ear  mark. 
The  colors  that  float  from  the  mast  head  should  be  the  creden- 
tials of  our  seamen.  There  is  no  safety  to  us,  and  the  gentlemen 
have  shown  it,  but  in  the  rule  that  all  who  sail  under  the  flag 
(not  being  enemies)  are  protected  by  the  flag.  It  is  impossible 
that  this  country  should  ever  abandon  the  gallant  tars  who  have 
won  for  us  such  splendid  trophies.  Let  me  suppose  that  the 
Genius  of  Columbia  should  visit  one  of  them  in  his  oppressor's 
prison  and  attempt  to  reconcile  him  to  his  wretched  condition. 
She  would  say  to  him,  in  the  language  of  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side,  "Great  Britain  intends  you  no  harm;  she  did  not 
mean  to  impress  you,  but  one  of  her  own  subjects ;  having  taken 
you  by  mistake,  I  will  remonstrate,  and  try  to  prevail  upon  her 
by  peaceable  means  to  release  you,  but  I  cannot,  my  son,  fight 
for  you. ' '  If  he  did  not  consider  this  mockery  he  would  address 
her  judgment,  and  say,  ' '  You  owe  me,  my  country,  protection ; 
I  owe  you  in  return  obedience.  I  am  no  British  subject,  I  am  a 
native  of  old  Massachusetts,  where  live  my  aged  father,  my 
wife,  and  my  children.  I  have  faithfully  discharged  my  duty. 
Will  you  refuse  to  do  yours  V9  Appealing  to  her  passions,  he 
would  continue,  ' '  I  lost  this  eye  in  fighting  under  Truxton  with 
the  Insurgent;  I  got  this  scar  before  Tripoli;  I  broke  this  leg 
on  board  the  Constitution  when  the  Guerriere  struck/ ' 

I  will  not  imagine  the  dreadful  catastrophe  to  which  he 
would  be  driven  by  an  abandonment  of  him  to  his  oppressor.  It 
will  not  be,  it  cannot  be,  that  his  country  will  refuse  him  pro- 
tection ! 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Pear- 
son] supposes  that  if  Congress  would  pass  a  law  prohibiting 
the  employment  of  British  seamen  in  our  service,  upon  condi- 
tion of  a  like  prohibition  on  their  part,  and  repeal  the  act  of 
non-importation,  peace  would  immediately  follow.  Sir,  I  have 
no  doubt  if  such  a  law  were  passed,  with  all  the  requisite  sol- 
emnities, and  the  repeal  to  take  place,  Lord  Castlereagh  would 
laugh  at  our  simplicity.  No,  sir,  Administration  has  erred  in 
the  steps  which  it  has  taken  to  restore  peace,  but  its  error  has 
been  not  in  doing  too  little,  but  in  betraying  too  great  a  solici- 
tude for  that  event.  An  honorable  peace  is  attainable  only  by 
an  efficient  war.    My  plan  would  be  to  call  out  the  ample  re- 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  205 

sources  of  the  country,  give  them  a  judicious  direction,  prose- 
cute the  war  with  the  utmost  vigor,  strike  wherever  we  can 
reach  the  enemy,  at  sea  or  on  land,  and  negotiate  the  terms  of  a 
peace  at  Quebec  or  Halifax.  We  are  told  that  England  is  a 
proud  and  lofty  nation  that,  disdaining  to  wait  for  danger,  meets 
it  half-way.  Haughty  as  she  is,  we  once  triumphed  over  her, 
and  if  we  do  not  listen  to  the  counsels  of  timidity  and  despair 
we  shall  again  prevail.  In  such  a  cause,  with  the  aid  of  Provi- 
dence, we  must  come  out  crowned  with  success;  but,  if  we  fail, 
let  us  fail  like  men — lash  ourselves  to  our  gallant  tars,  and  ex- 
pire together  in  one  common  struggle,  fighting  for  " seamen's 
rights  and  free  trade." 

Mr.  Eandolph  rose,  apparently  laboring  under  the 
effects  of  a  serious  indisposition,  and  addressed  the 
Chair. 

The  war  in  Europe  brought  to  this  country,  among  other 
birds  of  passage,  a  ravenous  flock  of  neutralized  carriers,  which 
interposed  the  flag  of  neutrality,  not  only  between  the  property, 
but  even  between  the  persons  of  the  two  belligerent  powers ;  and 
it  was  their  clamor  principally,  aided  by  the  representations  of 
those  of  our  merchants  who  saw  and  wished  to  participate  in  the 
gains  of  such  a  commerce,  that  the  first  step  was  taken  in  that 
policy  of  restriction  which  it  was  then  foreseen  would  lead  to 
the  disastrous  condition  in  which  we  now  find  ourselves.  Yes, 
it  was  then  foreseen  and  foretold.  What  was  then  prophesied  is 
now  history.  It  is  so.  ■ '  You, ' '  said  the  prophet,  ' '  are  prosper- 
ing beyond  all  human  example.  You,  favorites  of  Almighty  God, 
while  all  the  rest  of  the  world  are  scourged,  and  ravaged,  and 
desolated  by  war,  are  about  to  enter  into  a  policy  called  pre- 
ventive of  war ;  a  policy  which  comes  into  this  House  in  the  garb 
of  peace,  but  which  must  end  in  war."  And  in  war  it  has 
ended.  Yes,  sir,  we  have  been  tortured,  fretted,  goaded,  until 
at  last,  like  some  poor  man  driven  from  his  family  by  discord  at 
home,  who  says  to  himself,  ''anything,  even  exile,  is  better  than 
this, ' '  we  have  said  that  we  will  take  war ;  we  will  take  anything 
for  a  change.  And,  when  war  came,  what  said  the  people? 
They  said,  "anything  for  a  change!" 

Regardless  of  every  consequence,  we  went  into  war  with 
England  as  an  inconsiderate  couple  go  into  matrimony,  without 
considering  whether  they  have  the  means  of  sustaining  their 
own  existence,  much  less  that  of  any  unfortunate  progeny  that 
should  happen  to  be  born  of  them.    The  sacrifice  was  made.    The 


206  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

blood  of  Christians  enjoying  the  privileges  of  jury  trial,  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  of  the  freedom  of  conscience,  of  the  bles- 
sings of  civil  liberty,  citizens  of  the  last  republic  that  ambition 
has  left  upon  the  face  of  a  desolate  earth — the  blood  of  such  a 
people  was  poured  out  as  an  atonement  to  the  Moloch  of  France. 
The  Juggernaut  of  India  is  said  to  smile  when  it  sees  the  blood 
flow  from  the  human  sacrifice  which  its  worship  exacts;  the 
Emperor  of  France  might  now  smile  upon  us.  But,  no,  sir,  our 
miserable  offering  is  spurned.  The  French  monarch  turns  his 
nose  and  his  eyes  another  way.  He  snuffs  on  the  plains  of  Mos- 
cow a  thousand  hecatombs,  waiting  to  be  sacrificed  on  the  shrine 
of  his  ambition;  and  the  city  of  the  Czars,  the  largest  in  the 
world,  is  to  be  at  once  the  altar  and  the  fire  of  sacrifice  to  his 
miserable  ambition.  And  what  injury  has  the  Emperor  of  Russia 
done  to  him?  For  what  was  he  contending?  For  national  ex- 
istence ;  for  a  bare  existence ;  for  himself  and  the  people  who  are 
subject  to  his  sway.  And  what,  sir,  are  you  doing?  Virtually 
fighting  the  battles  of  his  foes;  surrendering  yourself  to  the 
views  of  his  adversary,  without  a  plea — without  anything  to 
justify  your  becoming  the  victims  of  his  blasting  ambition. 

Yes,  sir,  after  having  for  years  attempted  to  drive  us  by 
menace  into  war  with  England,  when  he  has  seen  us  fairly  em- 
barked in  it,  and  the  champions  of  human  rights  bleeding  in  his 
cause,  the  ruler  of  France  has  turned  with  contempt  from  your 
reclamations.  Is  there  anything  yet  wanting  to  fill  up  the  full 
measure  of  injustice  you  have  sustained?  Gentlemen  on  all 
sides  are  obliged  to  admit  that  the  provocation  which  we  have 
received  from  France  is  ample ;  that  the  cup  of  it  is  overflowing. 
And  yet,  what  is  our  situation  in  relation  to  that  destroyer  of 
mankind — him  who,  devising  death  to  all  that  live,  sits  like  a 
cormorant  on  the  tree  of  life ;  who  cannot  be  glutted,  nor  tired, 
with  human  carnage;  the  impersonation  of  death;  himself  an 
incarnate  death?  At  this  moment,  when  it  is  well  known  that 
it  would  not  require  one  additional  man  in  the  army  or  navy  to 
make  good,  in  the  eye  of  nations,  your  character  as  an  independ- 
ent and  high-spirited  people,  you  are  prostrate  at  the  feet  of 
your's  and  the  world's  undoer. 

A  word,  now,  on  the  subject  of  impressment.  Our  foreign 
trade  had  grown  beyond  the  capacity  of  either  our  tonnage  or 
seamen  to  manage.  Our  mercantile  marine  was  an  infant  Her- 
cules; but  it  was  overloaded  beyond  its  strength:  the  crop  was 
too  abundant  to  be  gathered  by  our  hands  alone.  The  conse- 
quence was,  and  a  natural  one,  too,  that  not  only  the  capitalists 
flocked  into  our  country  from  abroad  to  share  in  our  growing 


THE    WAR    OP    1812  207 

commerce,  but  the  policy  also  of  our  Government  was  adapted 
to  it,  and  a  law  was  passed  to  enable  us  to  avail  ourselves  of 
the  services  of  British  seamen  and  seamen  of  other  countries. 
And,  in  doing  this,  we  availed  ourselves  of  the  pretext — which, 
as  long  as  the  countries  to  which  they  belonged  winked  at  it, 
was  fair  for  us  to  use — of  taking  these  British  seamen  for  Amer- 
icans. It  was  in  1796  that  commenced  the  act  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made,  and  that  system  of  "  protections,  ■ '  as  they 
were  called,  the  very  mention  of  which,  at  this  day,  causes  a 
burst  of  honest  indignation  in  the  breast  of  citizens  whose  situa- 
tion enables  them  to  ascertain  their  true  character.  If  these 
1 '  protections, ' '  so  termed,  have  not  been  forged  all  over  Europe, 
it  is  only  for  the  reason  that  the  notes  of  a  certain  bank  of 
which  I  have  heard  have  not  been  forged,  viz:  that,  the  bank 
being  broke,  its  notes  were  so  worthless  that  people  would  not 
even  steal  them.  The  "protections"  are  attainable  by  every- 
body ;  by  men  of  all  ages,  countries,  and  descriptions.  They  are 
a  mere  farce.  The  issuing  of  them  has  gone  far  to  disgrace  the 
character  of  the  country,  and  has  brought  into  question  and 
jeopardy  the  rights  of  real  American  citizens.  Sir,  there  is  a 
wide  difference  between  the  character  of  American  seamen  and 
seamen  of  every  other  country  on  earth.  The  American  seaman 
has  a  home  on  the  land,  a  domicile,  a  wife  and  children,  to  whom 
he  is  attached,  to  whom  he  is  in  the  habit  of  returning  after 
his  voyages;  with  whom  he  spends,  sometimes,  a  long  vacation 
from  the  toils  of  maritime  life.  It  is  not  so  with  the  seamen  of 
other  countries.  For  the  protection  of  men  of  the  first  descrip- 
tion I  am  disposed,  if  necessary,  to  use  the  force  of  the  country, 
but  for  no  other.  I  know,  indeed,  that  some  gentlemen  who 
have  spoken  much  on  the  subject  of  the  principle  of  impress- 
ment will  tell  you  that  the  right  to  take  from  a  neutral  vessel 
one  seaman,  if  carried  to  its  extent,  involves  a  right  to  take  any 
or  all  seamen.  Why,  sir,  in  like  manner,  it  might  be  argued  that 
the  taking  illegally  of  one  vessel  at  sea  involves  the  right  to  take 
every  vessel.  And  yet,  sir,  who  ever  heard  of  two  nations  going 
to  war  about  a  single  case  of  capture,  though  admitted  not  to  be 
justified  by  the  laws?  Such  a  case  never  did  and  never  will 
occur. 

Of  one  thing  we  are  certain:  it  rests  upon  no  doubtful 
ground:  that  Great  Britain,  rather  than  surrender  the  right  of 
impressing  her  own  seamen,  will  nail  her  colors  to  the  mast,  and 
go  down  with  them.  And  she  is  right,  because,  when  she  does 
surrender  it,  she  is  Samson  shorn  of  his  strength :  the  sinews  of 
her  power  are  cut.    The  right  of  Great  Britain  to  take  her  own 


208  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

seamen  from  your  merchant  vessels  (if  it  be  a  right)  is  one 
which  she  has  exercised  ever  since  you  were  a  people,  wherever 
occasions  for  its  exercise  have  occurred.  Will  you  not  only  go 
to  war,  but  wage  a  helium  ad  internecinum  for  it?  Will  you 
wage  an  endless  war  of  extermination  for  this  right  which,  you 
have  known  for  two  and  twenty  years  of  your  national  existence, 
she  will  not  relinquish  ? 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  right  of  search  cannot  be  en- 
dured; that  the  protection  of  our  flag  must  be  held  inviolate; 
that  if  a  search  of  our  ships  be  permitted  for  British  seamen 
they  may  actually  take  American  seamen.  Sir,  there  is  no  doubt 
of  the  fact  that  by  mistake,  sometimes  perhaps  by  wilful  mis- 
conduct, on  the  part  of  officers  engaged  in  the  search,  such  a 
thing  may  happen.  But,  should  we  not  think  it  exceedingly 
strange  that  the  misconduct  of  an  officer  of  the  American  Gov- 
ernment, in  one  case  in  twenty  if  you  will,  should  be  a  cause  of 
war  for  any  nation  against  us?  It  is  one  of  those  cases  which 
does  occur,  and  will  forever  occur,  to  a  neutral  power,  whenever 
a  general  war  is  lighted  up.  It  is  one  of  the  prices  which  this 
country  has  to  pay  for  its  rapid  accession  of  wealth,  such  as  is 
unheard  of  in  the  annals  of  any  other  nation  but  our  own.  And 
this,  sir,  is  the  state  of  things  in  which  we  have  undertaken,  in 
children's  language,  to  quarrel  with  our  bread  and  butter;  and 
to  identify  ourselves  with  one  of  the  belligerents  in  a  war  in 
which  we  have  no  proper  concern. 

The  right  of  search  has  been  acknowledged  by  all  nations. 
The  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  Secretary  of  State, 
as  great  masters  of  the  law  of  nations,  will  be  among  the  first 
to  acknowledge  it;  they  have  acknowledged  it,  and  by  our 
treaties  with  foreign  powers  this  country  has  heretofore 
acknowledged  it,  so  far  as  concerns  the  right  to  search 
for  contraband  goods  and  enemy's  property.  There  is 
no  doubt  that,  under  the  color  of  the  right  of  search — 
for  I  am  advocating  its  lawful  purposes  only — abuses  have  been 
committed  on  neutrals;  and  as  long  as  men  exist  it  will  be  so. 
The  liability  to  abuse  of  this  right  is  the  price  which  neutrals 
pay  for  the  advantages  which  they  derive  from  their  neutrality ; 
and  I  should  like  to  know  whether  it  would  be  for  me  to  join  in 
the  contest  in  which  these  belligerents  are  engaged  for  the  re- 
covery of  my  neutral  rights.  Where  are  those  rights  when  great 
maritime  powers  become  belligerent?  There  are  neutral  rights 
undoubtedly,  but  there  are  also  neutral  duties.  And  shall  a 
neutral  nation,  a  nation  which  has  in  that  character  prospered 
and  flourished  more^than  any  people  on  the  face  of  the  globe 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  209 

sacrifice  those  rights  and  those  advantages,  and  resort  to  war 
against  one  of  those  belligerents — and  for  what  ?  For  a  point  of 
honor!  Yet,  while  in  this  Quixotic  spirit,  we  have  gone  to  war 
with  England;  although  we  have  been  robbed,  reviled,  con- 
temned throughout  by  the  Emperor  of  France,  we  can  see  no 
cause  of  war  with  him ! 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  French  doctrine  in  relation  to  this 
subject  of  impressment?  That  all  who  spoke  the  English  lan- 
guage should  be  treated  as  Englishmen,  unless  they  could  give 
proof  to  the  contrary;  the  onus  probandi  lying  on  those  who 
spoke  the  language  of  Locke,  and  Newton,  and  Milton,  and 
Shakespeare.  Yes,  sir,  while  the  English  Government  establishes 
no  such  doctrine,  the  French  Government  acts  upon  the  principle 
that  speaking  the  English  language  is  prima  facie  evidence  of 
your  being  a  British  subject,  and  would  justify  their  treating 
you  as  an  enemy,  the  burden  of  the  proof  to  the  contrary  being 
thrown  upon  yourself. 

Is  it  fitting  that  the  only  two  nations  among  whom  the  wor- 
ship of  the  true  God  has  been  maintained  with  anything  like 
truth  and  freedom  from  corruption;  that  the  only  two  nations 
among  whom  this  worship  has  been  preserved  unstained  shall  be 
the  two  now  arrayed  against  each  other  in  hostile  arms  in  a  con- 
flict in  which,  let  who  will  conquer  in  the  fight,  his  success  in 
one  point,  if  that  be  an  object,  will  have  been  attained :  so  much 
of  human  life,  liberty,  and  happiness  will  have  perished  in  the 
affray — in  the  service  of  this  scourge  with  which  it  has  pleased 
God,  in  his  wisdom  and  justice,  not  in  his  mercy,  to  inflict  man- 
kind? Is  it  fitting  that  those  hands  which  unite  in  giving  to 
idolaters  and  to  the  heathen  the  Word  of  God,  the  Book  of  Life 
— that  those  hands,  and  those  alone,  should  be  thus  drenched 
in  each  other 's  blood  ?  Will  you  unite  as  a  Christian  with  your 
Protestant  brother  across  the  Atlantic  for  these  noble  purposes, 
and  then  plunge  the  dagger  into  his  breast  with  whom  you  are 
associated  in  a  cause  so  holy — one  so  infinitely  transcending  the 
low,  the  little,  the  dirty  business  we  are  called  upon  here  to 
transact?  I  hope  that  the  sacrifice  may  be  stopped.  Let  us 
join  in  the  worship  of  the  true  and  living  God,  instead  of  spilling 
the  blood  of  His  people  on  the  abominable  altar  of  the  French 
Moloch. 

New  England's  Opposition  to  the  War 

From  the  first  outbreak  of  hostilities  with  Great 
Britain  the  center  of  opposition  to  the  war  had  been 
New  England.     Indeed,  the  State  governments  of  Con- 


210  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

necticut  and  Massachusetts  had  refused  to  contribute 
their  quotas  of  militia  for  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  characterizing  the  requisitions  of  Congress  as 
unconstitutional. 

In  reference  to  this  refusal  President  Madison,  in 
his  message  to  Congress  on  November  4,  1812,  said: 

This  refusal  is  founded  on  a  novel  and  unfortunate  exposi- 
tion of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  relating  to  the  militia. 
It  is  obvious  that  if  the  authority  of  the  United  States  to  call 
into  service  and  command  the  militia  for  the  public  defence 
can  be  thus  frustrated,  even  in  a  state  of  declared  war,  and 
of  course  under  apprehensions  of  invasion  preceding  war,  they 
are  not  one  nation  for  the  purpose  most  of  all  requiring  it ;  and 
that  the  public  safety  may  have  no  other  resource  than  in  those 
large  and  permanent  military  establishments  which  are  forbid- 
den by  the  principles  of  our  free  Government,  and  against  the 
necessity  of  which  the  militia  were  meant  to  be  a  constitutional 
bulwark. 

Among  the  many  New  England  statesmen  antagonis- 
tic to  the  war  was  Daniel  Webster,  elected  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  from  New  Hampshire  in  1812.  Be- 
fore the  close  of  his  term  he  assumed  the  position  of 
leader  of  the  anti-war  faction. 

On  January  14,  1814,  in  the  course  of  a  debate  on  a 
bill  for  the  encouragement  of  enlistments,  he  attacked 
the  Administration  for  its  un-American  policy  of  con- 
ducting an  offensive  war  (i.  e.,  for  the  conquest  of  Can- 
ada) instead  of  a  defensive  war  (i.  e.,  on  the  sea).  He 
was  replied  to  on  the  following  day  by  John  C.  Calhoun 
of  South  Carolina. 

Offensive  vs.  Defensive  Wab 

House  of  Representatives,  January  14-15,  1814 

Mr.  Webster. — You  have  prosecuted  this  invasion  [of  Can- 
ada] for  two  campaigns.  They  have  cost  you  vastly  more,  upon 
the  average,  than  the  campaigns  of  the  Revolutionary  war.  The 
project  has  already  cost  the  American  people  nearly  half  as 
much  as  the  whole  price  paid  for  independence.  The  result  is 
before  us.  Who  does  not  see  and  feel  that  this  result  disgraces 
us?    Who  does  not  see  in  what  estimation  our  martial  prowess 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  211 

must  be  by  this  time  holden  by  the  enemy  and  by  the  world? 
Administration  has  made  its  master  effort  to  subdue  a  province 
three  thousand  miles  removed  from  the  mother  country ;  scarcely 
equal  in  natural  strength  to  the  least  of  the  States  of  this  con- 
federacy, and  defended  by  external  aid  to  a  limited  extent.  It 
has  persisted  two  campaigns,  and  it  has  failed.  Let  the  respon- 
sibility rest  where  it  ought.  The  world  will  not  ascribe  the  issue 
to  want  of  spirit  or  patriotism  in  the  American  people.  The 
possession  of  those  qualities,  in  high  and  honorable  degrees,  they 
have  heretofore  illustriously  evinced,  and  spread  out  proof  on 
the  record  of  their  Revolution.  They  will  be  still  true  to  their 
character,  in  any  cause  which  they  feel  to  be  their  own.  In  all 
causes  they  will  defend  themselves.  The  enemy,  as  we  have 
seen,  can  make  no  permanent  stand  in  any  populous  part  of  the 
country.  Its  citizens  will  drive  back  his  forces  to  the  line.  But 
at  that  line,  at  the  point  where  defence  ceases  and  invasion  be- 
gins, they  stop.  They  do  not  pass  it  because  they  do  not  choose 
to  pass  it.  Offering  no  serious  obstacle  to  their  actual  power,  it 
rises,  like  a  Chinese  wall,  against  their  sentiments  and  their  feel- 
ings. 

It  is  natural,  sir,  such  being  my  opinion,  on  the  present  state 
of  things,  that  I  should  be  asked  what,  in  my  judgment,  ought 
to  be  done.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I  answer,  withdraw  your 
invading  armies  and  follow  counsels  which  the  national  senti- 
ment will  support.  In  the  next  place,  abandon  the  system  of 
commercial  restriction.  That  system  is  equally  ruinous  to  the 
interests  and  obnoxious  to  the  feelings  of  whole  sections  and 
whole  States.  They  believe  you  have  no  constitutional  right  to 
establish  such  systems.  They  protest  to  you  that  such  is  not, 
and  never  was,  their  understanding  of  your  powers.  They  are 
sincere  in  this  opinion,  and  it  is  of  infinite  moment  that  you 
duly  respect  that  opinion,  although  you  may  deem  it  to  be  er- 
roneous. These  people,  sir,  resisted  Great  Britain,  because  her 
minister,  under  pretence  of  regulating  trade,  attempted  to  put 
his  hand  into  their  pockets  and  take  their  money.  There  is  that, 
sir,  which  they  then  valued,  and  which  they  still  value,  more 
than  money.  That  pretence  of  regulating  trade  they  believed  to 
be  a  mere  cover  for  tyranny  and  oppression.  The  present  em- 
bargo, which  does  not  vex  and  harass  and  embarrass  their  com- 
merce, but  annihilates  it,  is  also  laid  by  color  of  a  power  to 
regulate  trade.  For  if  it  be  not  laid  by  virtue  of  this  power,  it 
is  laid  by  virtue  of  no  power.  It  is  not  wonderful,  sir,  if  this 
should  be  viewed  by  them  as  a  state  of  things  not  contemplated 
when  they  came  into  the  national  compact. 


212  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  humble  aid  which  it  would  be  in  my  power  to  render  to 
measures  of  Government  shall  be  given  cheerfully  if  Govern- 
ment will  pursue  measures  which  I  can  conscientiously  support. 
Badly  as  I  think  of  the  original  grounds  of  the  war,  as  well  as 
of  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  hitherto  conducted,  if  even 
now,  failing  in  an  honest  and  sincere  attempt  to  procure  just 
and  honorable  peace,  it  will  return  to  measures  of  defence  and 
protection,  such  as  reason  and  common  sense  and  the  public 
opinion  all  call  for,  my  vote  shall  not  be  withholden  from  the 
means.  Give  up  your  futile  projects  of  invasion.  Extinguish 
the  fires  that  blaze  on  your  inland  frontiers.  Establish  perfect 
safety  and  defence  there,  by  adequate  force.  Let  every  man  that 
sleeps  on  your  soil  sleep  in  security.  Stop  the  blood  that  flows 
from  the  veins  of  unarmed  yeomanry  and  women  and  children. 
Give  to  the  living  time  to  bury  and  lament  their  dead,  in  the 
quietness  of  private  sorrow. 

Having  performed  this  work  of  beneficence  and  mercy  on 
your  inland  border,  turn,  and  look  with  the  eye  of  justice  and 
compassion  on  your  vast  population  along  the  coast.  Unclench 
the  iron  grasp  of  your  embargo.  Take  measures  for  that  end 
before  another  sun  sets  upon  you.  With  all  the  war  of  the 
enemy  on  your  commerce,  if  you  would  cease  to  war  on  it  your- 
selves you  would  still  have  some  commerce.  That  commerce 
would  give  you  some  revenue.  Apply  that  revenue  to  the  aug- 
mentation of  your  navy.  That  navy,  in  turn,  will  protect  your 
commerce.  Let  it  no  longer  be  said  that  not  one  ship  of  force, 
built  by  your  hands  since  the  war,  yet  floats  upon  the  ocean. 
Turn  the  current  of  your  efforts  into  the  channel  which  national 
sentiment  has  already  worn  broad  and  deep  to  receive  it.  A 
naval  force,  competent  to  defend  your  coast  against  considerable 
armaments,  to  convoy  your  trade,  and  perhaps  raise  the  blockade 
of  your  rivers,  is  not  a  chimera.  It  may  be  realized.  If,  then, 
the  war  must  be  continued,  go  to  the  ocean.  If  you  are  seriously 
contending  for  maritime  rights  go  to  the  theater  where  alone 
those  rights  can  be  defended.  Thither  every  indication  of  your 
fortune  points  you.  There  the  united  wishes  and  exertions  of 
the  nation  will  go  with  you.  Even  our  party  divisions,  acri- 
monious as  they  are,  cease  at  the  water's  edge.  They  are  lost 
in  attachment  to  national  character  on  the  element  where  that 
character  is  made  respectable.  In  protecting  naval  interests  by 
naval  means  you  will  arm  yourselves  with  the  whole  power  of 
national  sentiment,  and  may  command  the  whole  abundance  of 
the  national  resources.  In  time  you  may  enable  yourselves  to 
redress  injuries,  in  the  place  where  they  may  be  offered,  and, 


THE    WAR    OF    1812 


213 


if  need  be,  to  accompany  your  own  flag  throughout  the  world 
with  the  protection  of  your  own  cannon. 

Mr.  Calhoun. — Gentlemen  contend  that  this  is  not  a  de- 
fensive but  an  offensive  war;  and  under  that  character  under- 
take its  denunciation,  without  ever  condescending  to  state  what 
in  their  opinion  constitutes  the  characteristic  difference  between 
them.     The  people  of  this  country  have  an  aversion  to  an  of- 


JOHN    BULL    STUNG    TO    AGONY    BY    THE    ' '  WASP '  '    AND    li  HORNET 
From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 

fensive  war;  which  I  suppose  interprets  the  meaning  of  the 
vehemence  of  the  Opposition  on  this  subject ;  while  they  readily 
acknowledge  the  possible  necessity  and  justice  of  one  that  is  de- 
fensive. It  is  therefore  proper  that  our  ideas  on  this  point 
should  be  fixed  with  precision  and  certainty.  I  would  lay  it 
down  as  a  universal  criterion  that  a  war  is  offensive  or  defensive, 
not  by  the  mode  of  carrying  it  on,  which  is  an  immaterial  cir- 
cumstance, but  by  the  motive  and  cause  which  led  to  it.  If  it 
has  its  origin  in  ambition,  avarice,  or  any  of  the  like  passions, 
then  is  it  offensive;  but  if,  on  the  contrary,  to  repel  insult,  in- 
jury, or  oppression,  it  is  of  an  opposite  character,  and  is  de- 
fensive.   In  the  view  which  I  have  presented  the  difference  be- 


214  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

tween  an  offensive  and  defensive  war  is  of  the  moral  kind ;  and 
the  American  sense  of  justice  accounts  for  their  feelings.  Their 
exemption  from  ambition  and  love  of  justice  preserve  them 
from  the  former,  while  their  manly  spirit  and  good  sense  will 
always  make  them  cheerfully  meet  the  other  whenever  it  be- 
comes necessary.  "What,  then,  is  the  character  of  the  war  in 
which  we  are  now  engaged  ?  Was  it  dictated  by  avarice  or  love 
of  conquest?  I  appeal  to  our  opponents  for  a  decision.  They 
have  already  decided.  When  the  resolutions  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  Hampshire  were  under  discussion,  at  the  last  session, 
it  was  repeated  till  the  ear  was  fatigued  by  every  one  on  that 
side  of  the  House  who  took  any  part  in  the  debate  that  if  the 
repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  been  communicated 
in  time  to  the  British  Government  the  Orders  in  Council  would 
have  been  repealed;  and,  had  the  last  even  happened,  the  war 
would  not  have  been  declared.  They  then  have  acknowledged 
that  the  Orders  in  Council,  and  not  the  conquest  of  Canada,  as 
they  now  pretend,  was  the  cause  of  the  war;  and  it  would  be 
idle  to  inquire  whether  to  resist  them  is  in  its  nature  offensive  or 
defensive.  It  would  be  to  inquire  whether  they  are  or  are  not 
an  injury  to  our  commerce ;  a  point  I  have  never  heard  denied 
by  the  most  obstinate  debater.  It  would  be  equally  so  to  ex- 
amine whether  the  cause  of  continuing  the  war,  to  prevent  our 
seamen  from  impressment,  is  of  an  offensive  or  defensive  char- 
acter. 

Very  few  have  the  hardihood  to  deny  that  it  is  an  injury  of 
the  most  serious  kind,  both  as  it  regards  the  Government  and 
the  unhappy  subjects  of  its  operations.  It  involves  the  most 
sacred  obligation  which  can  bind  the  body  politic  to  the  citizen ; 
I  mean  that  of  protection,  due  alike  to  all ;  to  the  beggar  in  the 
street — much  more,  if  susceptible  of  degrees,  to  our  sailors,  that 
class  of  the  community  who  have  added  so  much  to  the  wealth 
and  renown  of  this  country.  Having  thus  established  the  char- 
acter of  the  war  in  its  origin  and  continuance,  I  would  lay  down 
as  a  rule  not  less  clear  that  a  defensive  war  does  not  become 
offensive  by  being  carried  beyond  the  limits  of  our  territory. 
The  motive  and  cause  will  ever  give  character;  all  the  rest  are 
mere  essential  incidents.  When  once  declared,  the  only  ques- 
tion, even  in  a  defensive  war,  is  how  can  it  be  carried  on  with 
the  greatest  effect.  The  reverse  of  this  involves  the  most  glaring 
absurdity.  It  supposes  that  we  had  determined  to  compel  our 
enemy  to  respect  our  rights;  and  at  the  same  time  voluntarily 
renounced  what  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  best  and  most  effec- 
tual mode  of  producing  that  effect.    On  this  point,  as  well  as  the 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  215 

cause  of  the  war,  the  opinion  of  our  opponents  may  be  arrayed 
against  themselves.  What  have  they  advised  as  to  the  mode  of 
carrying  on  the  war?  Withdraw  your  troops  from  Canada, 
reduce  your  army,  and  limit  your  operations  to  the  ocean. 
What !  to  the  ocean  ?  Carry  the  war  beyond  our  own  territory ! 
make  it  offensive !  The  gentlemen  surely  do  not  intend  to  sup- 
port an  offensive  war.  To  use  their  own  language,  it  is  too  im- 
moral for  a  virtuous  and  religious  people.  It  is  then  admitted 
that  it  does  not  cease  to  be  offensive  by  its  being  waged  at  sea; 
how,  then,  can  the  carrying  it  into  Canada  change  its  character  ? 
It  now  remains  to  consider  the  defence  which  gentlemen  have 
made  for  their  opposition  to  the  war  and  the  policy  of  their 
country;  a  subject  which  I  conceive  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, not  only  as  affecting  the  result  of  the  present  contest, 
but  the  lasting  peace  and  prosperity  of  our  country.  They 
assume  as  a  fact  that  opposition  is  in  its  nature  harmless;  and 
that  the  calamities  which  have  afflicted  free  States  have  origi- 
nated in  the  blunders  and  folly  of  the  Government,  and  not 
from  the  perverseness  of  opposition.  Opposition  simply  implies 
contrariety  of  opinion ;  and,  when  used  in  the  abstract,  it  admits 
neither  censure  nor  praise.  It  cannot  be  said  to  be  either  good 
or  bad ;  useful  or  pernicious.  It  is  not  from  itself,  but  from  the 
connected  circumstances,  that  it  derives  its  character.  When  it 
is  simply  the  result  of  that  diversity  in  the  structure  of  our 
intellect  which  conducts  to  different  conclusions  on  the  same 
subject,  and  is  confined  within  those  bounds  which  love  of  coun- 
try and  political  honesty  prescribe,  it  is  one  of  the  most  useful 
guardians  of  liberty.  It  excites  gentle  collision,  prompts  to  due 
vigilance,  a  quality  so  indispensable,  and  at  the  same  time  so 
opposite  to  our  nature,  and  results  in  the  establishment  of  an 
enlightened  policy  and  useful  laws.  Such  are  its  qualities  when 
united  with  patriotism  and  moderation.  But  in  many  instances 
it  assumes  a  far  different  character.  Combined  with  faction  and 
ambition  it  bursts  those  limits  within  which  it  may  usefully  act, 
and  becomes  the  first  of  political  evils.  If,  sir,  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  of  the  House  intend  to  include  this  last  species  of 
opposition,  as  I  am  warranted  to  infer  from  their  expression, 
when  they  spoke  of  its  harmless  character,  then  have  they  made 
an  assertion  in  direct  contradiction  to  reason,  experience,  and  all 
history.  A  factious  opposition  is  compounded  of  such  elements 
that  no  reflecting  man  will  ever  consider  it  as  harmless.  The 
fiercest  and  most  ungovernable  passions  of  our  nature,  ambition, 
pride,  rivalry,  and  hate,  enter  into  its  dangerous  composition — 
made  still  more  so  by  its  power  of  delusion,  by  which  its  projects 


216  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

against  government  are  covered  in  most  instances,  even  to  the 
eyes  of  its  victims,  by  the  specious  show  of  patriotism.  Thus 
constituted,  who  can  estimate  its  force?  Where  can  benevolent 
and  social  feelings  be  found  sufficiently  strong  to  counteract  its 
progress  ?  Is  love  of  country  ?  Alas !  the  attachment  to  a  party 
becomes  stronger  than  that  to  our  country.  A  factious  opposi- 
tion sickens  at  the  sight  of  the  prosperity  and  success  of  the 
country.  Common  adversity  is  its  life;  general  prosperity  its 
death.  Nor  is  it  only  over  our  virtuous  sentiments  that  this 
bane  of  freedom  triumphs.  Even  the  selfish  passions  of  our 
nature,  planted  in  our  bosom  for  our  individual  safety,  afford  no 
obstacle  to  its  progress.  It  is  this  opposition  which  gentlemen 
call  harmless,  and  treat  with  so  much  respect ;  it  is  this  moral 
treason  which  has  in  all  ages  and  countries  ever  proved  the 
most  deadly  foe  to  freedom. 

Nor  is  it  then  only  dangerous,  when  it  breaks  forth  into  open 
treason  and  rebellion.  Without  resort  to  violence  it  is  capable 
in  a  thousand  ways  to  counteract  and  deaden  all  the  motions  of 
Government ;  to  render  its  policy  wavering,  and  to  compel  it  to 
submit  to  schemes  of  aggrandizement  on  the  part  of  other  gov- 
ernments; or,  if  resistance  is  determined  on,  to  render  it  feeble 
and  ineffectual.  Do  gentlemen  ask  for  instances?  Unhappily, 
they  are  but  too  numerous.  Where  shall  they  not  be  found? 
Admired  and  lamented  republics  of  antiquity ! — Athens,  Carth- 
age, and  Rome — you  are  the  victims  and  witnesses  of  the  fell 
spirit  of  factious  opposition.  Fatal  fields  of  Zama  and  Chsero- 
nea !  you  can  attest  its  destructive  cruelty.  What  is  the  history 
of  Polybius,  and  that  of  the  other  historians  of  the  free  states  of 
antiquity?  What  the  political  speeches  of  Cicero,  and  the  ora- 
tions of  Demosthenes,  those  models  of  eloquence  and  wisdom,  but 
volumes  of  evidence,  attesting  that  an  opposition  founded  in 
faction,  unrestrained  by  moderation  and  a  regard  to  the  general 
welfare,  is  the  most  dangerous  of  political  evils.  Nor  does  an- 
tiquity alone  testify.  The  history  of  modern  times  is  pregnant 
with  examples.  What,  I  would  ask,  have  become  of  the  free 
states  of  modern  Italy,  which  once  flourished  in  wealth  and 
power — Florence,  Genoa,  Venice,  and  many  others?  What  of 
the  United  Provinces  and  Switzerland?  Gone;  perished  under 
the  deadly  feuds  of  opposition.  Even  England,  with  her  deep- 
rooted  and  powerful  executive,  has  not  been  free  from  its  per- 
nicious effect.  What  arrested  the  war  of  Marlborough,  when 
France  was  so  humbled  that,  had  it  been  continued,  Europe 
might  have  been  free  from  the  danger  which  she  has  experienced 
from  that  power?    What  stayed  the  conquering  hand  of  Chat- 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  217 

ham,  when  before  his  genius  and  power  the  throne  of  the  Bour- 
bons trembled  to  its  center?  The  spirit  of  factious  opposition, 
that  common  cause  of  calamity,  that  without  which  liberty  might 
be  eternal,  and  free  states  irresistible. 

The  Hartford  Convention 

In  the  congressional  elections  in  the  autumn  of  1814 
the  opponents  of  the  war  elected  all  the  representatives 
from  New  England  except  three.  Emboldened  thereby 
the  Massachusetts  legislature,  on  October  18,  1814,  pro- 
posed a  convention  of  the  New  England  States  "to  lay 
the  foundation  of  a  radical  reform  in  the  national  com- 
pact by  inviting  to  a  future  convention  a  deputation 
from  all  the  other  States  in  the  Union." 

Agreeably  to  this  proposition  delegates  from  Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and  the  Federalist 
counties  of  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont  met  at  Hart- 
ford, Conn.,  on  December  15,  1814.  In  this  convention, 
which  deliberated  for  three  weeks,  a  report  to  the  legis- 
latures and  counties  represented  was  adopted,  in  which 
a  number  of  constitutional  amendments  were  proposed; 
but  news  of  the  signing  of  a  treaty  of  peace  with  Great 
Britain  was  received  before  any  of  the  recommendations 
could  be  acted  upon. 

[For  a  discussion  of  the  Hartford*  convention  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  secession,  see  Volume  V, 
Chapter  L] 

Appointment  of  Peace  Commissioners 

Early  in  1813  the  Emperor  of  Russia  offered  him- 
self as  a  mediator  in  order  to  facilitate  peace  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  At  the  opening  of 
Congress  in  May,  1813,  the  President  announced  that 
he  had  appointed  James  A.  Bayard,  Henry  Clay,  and 
Albert  Gallatin  as  envoys  extraordinary  to  act  with 
John  Quincy  Adams,  minister  to  Russia,  and  Jonathan 
Russell,  charge  des  affaires  of  the  United  States  at  Lon- 
don, as  peace  commissioners. 

The  British  Government,  on  one  pretext  or  another, 
delayed  appointing  commissioners  to  negotiate  with  the 


218 


GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 


American  envoys.  Indeed  it  was  not  until  the  summer 
of  1814  that  the  British  commissioners,  Lord  Gambier, 
Henry  Goulburn,  and  William  Adams,  were  appointed. 
On  August  6  the  commissioners  of  both  countries  met 
at  Ghent,  in  Belgium,  and  proceeded  to  their  negotia- 
tions, which  terminated  on  December  24,  1814,  with  the 
signing  of  the  treaty. 


THE  PALL  OF  WASHINGTON,  OR  MADDY    [MADISON]   IN  FULL  FLIGHT 

British  caricature 
From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 

The  delay  had  been  profitable  to  Great  Britain.  The 
failure  of  the  military  policy  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment, the  great  expense  of  the  war,  and  the  rapidly  in- 
creasing strength  of  the  opposition  made  it  imperative 
that  peace  should  be  secured  as  quickly  as  possible,  and, 
if  necessary,  at  a  sacrifice,  even  of  principles.  Hence, 
even  before  the  commissioners  met  at  Ghent,  the  Amer- 
ican Government  had  instructed  its  representatives  to 
omit,  at  their  discretion,  any  stipulation  on  the  subject 
of  impressment  which  appeared  likely  to  be  the  point 
of  irreconcilable  difference. 

The  American  commissioners  therefore,  after  con- 
tending for  as  long  as  it  seemed  wise  for  the  assertion  of 


THE    WAR    OF    1812  219 

' '  sailors '  rights, ' '  for  the  maintenance  of  which  the  war 
had  really  been  f ought,  at  last  agreed  to  accept  Great 
Britain's  relinquishment  of  the  practice  (now  that  there 
was  peace  in  Europe)  in  lieu  of  her  humiliating  recan- 
tation of  the  principle.  The  question  of  neutral  rights 
also  was  not  pressed  by  the  American  commissioners  for 
the  same  reason. 

The  main  provisions  of  the  treaty  were : 

1.  Eestoration  to  its  former  ownership  of  territory 
captured  by  either  party. 

2.  Settlement  of  disputed  territory,  and  establish- 
ment of  boundary  by  joint  commissions. 

3.  Suppression  by  the  earnest  efforts  of  both  par- 
ties of  the  slave  trade,  as  being  a  practice  "irreconcil- 
able with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  justice." 

Although  the  objects  for  which  the  United  States 
had  begun  the  war  were  not  mentioned  in  the  treaty, 
they  were  practically  secured  by  the  contest.  There- 
after, knowing  that  such  actions  would  result  in  war, 
Great  Britain  did  not  attempt  to  enforce  against  this 
country  her  peculiar  construction  of  neutral  rights,  the 
right  of  search,  and  the  impressment  of  sailors. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Recognition  of  South  American  Republics 
[The  Monroe  Doctrine] 

Revolt  of  Latin  America — Resolution  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to 
Send  a  Minister  to  La  Plata  Republics;  Speeches  in  Favor:  Henry 
Clay  [Ky.],  Thomas  B.  Robertson  [La.],  John  Floyd  [Va.] — Motion 
Negatived — President  James  Monroe's  Message  in  Favor  of  Recogniz- 
ing Independence  of  South  American  Republics — Resolution  of  the  House 
to  This  Effect;  in  Favor,  David  Trimble  [Ky.] ;  Opposed,  Robert  S. 
Garnett  [Va.] — Motion  Carried — The  President  Declares  Against  Euro- 
pean Colonization  of  the  Americas  and  Interference  in  American  Af- 
fairs— The  Occasion  of  the  Declaration — Strict  and  Broad  Construction 
of  the  Doctrine — President  John  Quincy  Adams  Accepts  Invitation  to 
Send  Delegates  to  the  Panama  Congress — Debate  in  the  Senate:  in 
Favor,  Josiah  S.  Johnston  [La.] ;  Opposed,  Robert  Y.  Hayne  [S.  C], 
Levi  Woodbury  [N.  H.]— The  Action  Is  Ratified— John  Branch  [N.  C] 
Introduces  Resolution  in  the  Senate  Protesting  Against  the  President 
Acting  in  Such  Matters  Without  the  Consent  of  the  Senate — John  Ran- 
dolph [Va.]  Attacks  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State  (Henry 
Clay):   "Blifil  and  Black  George "— Duel  Between  Randolph  and  Clay. 

DURING  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury there  occurred  a  general  revolt  under  the 
leadership  of  General  Simon  Bolivar  against 
Spanish  rule  throughout  Latin  America.  Among  the 
first  of  the  former  colonies  of  Spain  to  establish  a  fairly- 
stable  government  under  the  republican  form  were  the 
provinces  of  the  Eiver  Plata.  The  question  arose  in 
Congress  as  to  the  recognition  of  these  governments. 
The  Spanish  minister,  Seiior  Onis,  opposed  this  action. 
On  March  24,  1818,  Henry  Clay  [Ky.]  proposed  in  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  to  appropriate  money  to  send 
a  minister  to  Buenos  Aires,  and  on  the  next  day  sup- 
ported his  resolution  by  a  speech.     Thomas  B.  Bobert 

220 


: 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  221 

son  [La.]  and  John  Floyd  [Va.]  also  spoke  in  favor  of 
the  motion.  On  March  27  the  resolution  for  prudential 
reasons  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of  115  to  45. 


The  Solidarity  of  American  Republics 
House  of  Representatives,  March  24-27,  1818 

Mr.  Clay. — I  am  no  propagandist.  I  would  not  seek  to  force 
upon  other  nations  our  principles  and  our  liberty,  if  they  did 
not  want  them.  I  would  not  disturb  the  repose  even  of  a  de- 
testable despotism.  But  if  an  abused  and  oppressed  people 
will  their  freedom ;  if  they  seek  to  establish  it ;  if,  in  truth,  they 
have  established  it,  we  have  a  right,  as  a  sovereign  power,  to 
notice  the  fact  and  to  act  as  circumstances  and  our  interest  re- 
quire. I  would  say,  in  the  language  of  the  venerated  Father  of 
our  Country:  "Born  in  a  land  of  liberty,  my  anxious  recollec- 
tions, my  sympathetic  feelings,  and  my  best  wishes  are  irresist- 
ibly excited  whensoever,  in  any  country,  I  see  an  oppressed 
nation  unfurl  the  banners  of  freedom."1  Whenever  I  think  of 
Spanish  America,  the  image  irresistibly  forces  itself  upon  my 
mind  of  an  elder  brother,  whose  education  has  been  neglected, 
whose  person  has  been  abused  and  maltreated,  and  who  has  been 
disinherited  by  the  unkindness  of  an  unnatural  parent.  And 
when  I  contemplate  the  glorious  struggle  which  that  country 
is  now  making,  I  see  in  my  mind  that  brother  rising,  by  the 
power  and  energy  of  his  fine  native  genius,  to  the  manly  rank 
which  nature  and  nature's  God  intended  for  him. 

We  are  the  natural  head  of  the  American  family.  I  would 
not  intermeddle  in  the  affairs  of  Europe.  We  wisely  keep  aloof 
from  their  broils.  I  would  not  even  intermeddle  in  those  of 
other  parts  of  America  farther  than  to  exert  the  incontestable 
rights  appertaining  to  us  as  a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent 
power;  and,  I  contend,  the  accrediting  of  a  Minister  from  the 
new  Republic  is  such  a  right.  We  are  bound  to  receive  their 
Minister,  if  we  mean  to  be  really  neutral.  If  the  Royal  bellig- 
erent were  represented  and  heard  at  our  Government,  the  Re- 
publican belligerent  ought  also  to  be  heard.  Give  M.  Onis  his 
conge,  or  receive  the  Republican  Minister.  Unless  you  do  so, 
your  neutrality  is  nominal. 

Mr.  Robertson. — I  do  not  consider  the  direct  pecuniary  ad- 

1  Washington fs  answer  to  the  French  Minister's  address,  on  his  pre- 
senting the   colors  of   France,   in    1796. 


222  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

vantages  to  our  country,  however  great  and  certain  they  may 
be,  as  of  so  much  importance  as  the  political  and  moral  effects 
growing  out  of  a  liberal  and  manly  policy  toward  the  South 
American  people.  It  will  have  a  tendency  to  give  us  confidence 
in  the  firmness  and  virtue  of  Government — it  will  prove  that 
it  is  not  forgetful  of  the  high  character  which  belongs  to  us 
as  a  powerful  and  free  people — that  the  reputation  we  have 
acquired,  at  the  expense  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure  is  not 
to  be  sacrificed  by  timidity,  or  an  undue  spirit  of  accommoda- 
tion toward  the  monarchs  of  Europe — that  we  will  do  what  our 
principles  require,  in  spite  of  imaginary  terrors,  artfully  excited 
by  the  enemies  of  freedom — in  fine,  that,  cautious  of  giving  just 
cause  of  offence,  we  will  pursue  the  path  of  fidelity  and  honor 
in  defiance  of  the  views  and  wishes  of  those  whose  political 
institutions  make  them  necessarily  hostile  to  human  happiness 
and  human  rights — that  we  dare  at  least  do  what  we  are  sus- 
tained in  by  right  and  truth  in  favor  of  the  liberties  of  man- 
kind without  being  deterred  by  those  who  promote,  with  un- 
hallowed violence,  at  the  expense  of  every  sacred  obligation,  the 
dogmas  of  priest-craft  and  the  doctrines  of  despotism.  And, 
if  we  are  asked  by  the  officious  and  intermeddling  representa- 
tives of  kings  why  it  is  that  we  not  only  feel  but  manifest 
sympathy  for  a  people  struggling  to  be  free,  let  us  refer  them 
to  their  own  unholy  combinations,  in  support  of  the  execrable 
principles  of  their  government — let  us  tell  them  of  their  wars 
for  thirty  years  past  against  liberty — that  if  the  safety  of 
monarchies  in  Europe  depends  on  the  annihilation  of  republics, 
the  security  of  a  republic  in  America  will  not  be  injured  by 
other  republics  growing  up  by  its  side. 

Mr.  Floyd. — The  grand  object  and  advantage  of  estab- 
lishing an  independent  policy  for  America  would  be  that  we 
might  be  disenthralled — that  we  might  not  feel  the  effects  of 
that  political  plexus  which  has  so  entangled  the  nations  of 
Europe,  by  producing  those  intimate  connections  and  combina- 
tions by  which  the  movements  and  operations  of  one  power  are 
so  felt  by  all  as  to  influence  their  councils  and  produce  cor- 
responding motions.  When  now  we  negotiate,  it  is  in  Europe ; 
when  we  are  inconvenienced  here,  we  send  off  an  ambassador 
there;  they  are  governed  by  the  principles  and  policy  of  con- 
tinental Europe,  and  not  by  anything  here.  Do  difficulties  arise 
in  Canada,  they  are  adjusted  in  London.  Do  the  same  difficul- 
ties arise  in  Mexico,  the  province  of  Texas,  or  in  Florida,  they 
are  settled  in  Madrid.  Thus  are  we  compelled  to  negotiate  all 
our  affairs  upon  the  basis  of  European  policy,  because  even  the 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  223 

best  interests  of  the  colonists  must  give  way  to  the  policy  of  the 
mother  country. 

But  when  the  independence  of  the  South  Americans  shall 
be  acknowledged,  and  they  take  their  stand  among  the  great 
nations  of  the  earth,  there  will  then  be  an  American  policy, 
and  a  European  policy,  which  may,  in  negotiation  upon  just  and 
honorable  principles,  be  fairly  opposed  to  each  other.  Then,  if, 
unhappily,  difficulties  should  arise  exclusively  on  this  side  the 
ocean,  there  will  be  no  European  convenience  to  consult,  delay, 
or  obstruct  their  adjustment  in  terms  of  complete  reciprocity. 

On  March  8,  1822,  President  Monroe  in  his  message 
expressed  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  American  provinces 
of  Spain  which  had  declared  their  independence  and 
were  in  enjoyment  of  it  should  be  recognized  by  the 
United  States  as  independent  nations.  On  March  28  a 
motion  to  extend  this  recognition  was  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Representatives.  David  Trimble  [Ky.] 
made  the  chief  speech  in  its  support.  It  was  passed  by 
a  vote  of  167  to  1.  Robert  S.  Garnett  [Va.]  cast  the 
single  vote  in  opposition,  and,  suffering  from  odium 
for  his  action,  on  March  30  he  asked  to  have  his  reasons 
for  dissent  to  an  otherwise  unanimous  opinion  entered 
on  the  Journal  of  Congress.  His  request  was  refused 
by  a  vote  of  49  to  51.  On  April  1,  however,  when  the 
feeling  of  the  House  was  somewhat  sobered,  the  vote 
was  reconsidered  and  the  desired  permission  was 
granted,  89  yeas  to  71  nays,  those  who  voted  in  the  nega- 
tive doing  so  in  order  not  to  establish  a  precedent  that 
might  encumber  the  minutes. 

Becognition  of  South  American  Independence 

House  of  Representatives,  March  28-30,  1822 

Mr.  Trimble. — The  nations  of  America  have  suffered  more 
from  the  severity  of  commercial  interdictions  and  colonial  mo- 
nopoly, than  they  have  from  the  cruelty  of  arbitrary  power — 
that  commercial  vassalage  has  been  more  oppressive  to  them 
than  political  dependence;  and  that  they  are  as  deeply  inter- 
ested in  the  establishment  of  free  trade  as  they  are  of  free  gov- 
ernment. The  radical  change  made  in  their  political  condition 
will  necessarily  be  attended  with  a  corresponding  change  in 


224  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

their  commercial  intercourse  and  maritime  relations.  Their 
case,  in  all  its  aspects,  is  similar  to  that  of  the  United  States,  and 
will  terminate  in  similar  results.  The  entire  emancipation  of 
the  new  from  the  old  continent  can  only  be  effected  by  two  great 
revolutions:  the  one  political,  the  other  commercial.  Both  had 
commenced  in  the  United  States  under  the  most  favorable  aus- 
pices, and  are  progressing  southward  in  the  "full  tide  of  suc- 
cessful experiment."  These  revolutions  have  been  preceded  by 
a  "wide-spread  range"  of  moral  reformation.  The  new  hemi- 
sphere has  produced  a  new  catalog  of  civil  maxims — a  new 
family  of  political  institutions — a  new  code  of  commercial  regu- 
lations. All  civilized  nations  were  under  the  dominion  of  two 
great  social  systems,  differing  widely  from  each  other.  One 
is  established  in  the  Occidental,  the  other  in  the  Oriental  world. 
The  spirit  of  the  age  is  against  the  European  system.  The 
American  system  has  invaded  Europe,  and  spreads  alarm  and 
consternation  everywhere  among  its  kings  and  emperors.  A 
coalition  of  crowned  heads  is  created  to  oppose  it  and  two 
millions  of  armed  men  embodied  to  expel  it  from  that  continent. 

And  what  are  these  systems?  What  is  the  American  sys- 
tem ?  Why  is  it  that  it  agitates  two  worlds  ?  Why  should  kings 
shudder  at  it,  while  their  subjects  bid  it  welcome?  Of  what 
is  it  composed  ?  What  is  the  element  that  thus,  when  unresisted, 
operates  unseen,  but,  when  opposed,  launches  its  thunderbolts  at 
diadems  and  shakes  the  nations  like  an  earthquake  ?  It  has  two 
aspects,  two  essential  principles — one  political,  the  other  com- 
mercial. The  first  is  known  and  distinguished  by  written  con- 
stitutions, representative  government,  religious  toleration,  free- 
dom of  opinion,  of  speech,  and  of  the  press.  The  second,  by 
sailors '  rights,  free  trade,  and  freedom  of  the  seas. 

Contrast  it  with  the  European  system.  The  political  char- 
acter of  that  system  is  aristocracy,  monarchy,  imperial  gov- 
ernment, arbitrary  power,  passive  obedience,  and  unconditional 
submission.  Its  commercial  character  is  prohibition,  restriction, 
interdiction,  impressment,  colonial  monopoly,  and  maritime 
domination.  These  systems  are  the  antipodes  of  each  other. 
They  are  sworn  enemies,  and  cannot  harmonize. 

The  American  system  is  free  government  and  free  trade; 
monarchy  and  monopoly  is  that  of  Europe.  But  the  European 
system  is  artificial,  and  will  perish  with  the  spurious  causes 
that  produced  it.  The  American  system  is  natural,  and,  there- 
fore, durable — natural,  because  it  springs  from  public  opinion 
— from  the  embodied  will  of  nations  acting  freely  for  them- 
selves; durable,  because  it  reposes  upon  written  constitutions. 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  225 

Its  first  appearance  struck  the  despots  with  dismay.  Our  Revo- 
lution gave  it  birth.  Its  nativity  was  cast  among  these  States. 
It  grows  with  their  growth,  and  strengthens  with  their  strength. 
The  impulse  of  the  age  accelerates  its  motion.  Nothing  can 
impede  its  march  because  it  moves  in  the  majesty  of  national 
opinion  and  public  opinion  is  a  power  that  cannot  be  resisted. 
From  every  zone  we  hear  of  congresses,  elected  by  the  people, 
assembled  and  assembling  to  establish  written  constitutions. 
The  system  spreads  like  light — its  rays  fall  everywhere.  The 
nations  hail  it  as  the  harbinger  of  peace  and  happiness.  They 
act  wisely  in  laboring  to  adopt  it,  seeing  that  the  people  of 
this  Union  have  prospered  under  it  beyond  all  former  parallel. 

The  tendency  of  the  American  system  is  manifest  to  every 
statesman.  Its  political  progress  and  extension  can  be  seen 
by  every  observer,  and  time  will  develop  its  maritime  results. 
A  single  instance  will  explain  its  commercial  operation.  The 
continent  is  free;  not  so  the  Islands.  Europe,  as  to  them,  will 
continue  its  system  of  colonial  monopoly — its  system  of  in- 
terdictions, prohibitions,  and  restrictions.  These  will  act  and 
re-act  upon  all  the  Americas,  but  more  especially  upon  Colombia, 
Mexico,  and  the  United  States.  Those  powers  will  retaliate, 
and  unite  in  their  retaliation.  The  common  injury  will  find  a 
common  remedy.  They  will  adopt  the  counter-check  of  navi- 
gation laws,  and,  by  simultaneously  protecting  regulations,  ex- 
clude all  foreign  tonnage  from  their  ports  and  harbors.  A  blow 
like  that  would  be  decisive.  It  would  forever  prostrate  the 
colonial  system  and  open  a  free  trade  to  all  the  Islands.  The 
measure,  when  adopted,  would  finish  the  commercial  revolution. 
It  would  subvert  the  whole  system  of  maritime  domination,  and 
restore  the  freedom  of  the  seas.  And  thus  the  Americas,  by 
the  reaction  of  internal  laws  and  regulations,  well  concerted  and 
well  directed,  may  enforce  their  system  of  free  trade.  Thus, 
without  the  waste  of  blood  or  treasure,  they  may  sustain  the 
general  system,  and  vindicate  the  rights  and  honor  of  the  con- 
tinent. Hitherto,  he  said,  the  American  system  of  free  trade 
had  been  struggling,  single-handed,  with  the  European  system 
of  colonial  monopoly,  and  had  maintained  itself  against  the 
fearful  odds.  Hereafter,  all  the  Americas  will  cooperate.  The 
subject  ought  to  have  their  prompt  attention.  It  required  a 
careful  examination,  because  the  course  of  policy  to  be  adopted 
by  them  would  settle,  finally  and  forever,  whether  the  American 
system  shall  prevail,  or  that  of  Europe  triumph  over  it. 

Shall  the  people  of  this  continent  forego  the  advantages  of 
free  and  friendly  intercourse,  to  indulge  the  mother  country  in 


226  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

her  love  of  dominion?  Shall  we,  as  a  nation,  stifle  all  our  sym- 
pathies in  favor  of  free  governments,  to  gratify  the  vain-glori- 
ous pride  of  Spain?  If  we  do,  we  shall  betray  the  rights  and 
interests  of  republics.  Heaven,  in  giving  freedom  to  us  first, 
made  it  our  primal  eldest  duty  to  go  forth  first,  and  acknowledge 
it  in  others.  Honor  and  duty  call  alike  upon  us  to  perform  the 
rightful  obligation.  The  same  Providence  that  gave  us  succor 
in  the  perils  of  our  Revolutionary  struggle  is  conducting  the 
other  nations  of  America,  through  bloody  wars,  to  peace  and 
independence.  Our  approbation  may  inspire  them  with  fresh 
confidence,  and  stimulate  their  love  of  liberty.  If  there  are 
any  who  have  fears  that  the  proposed  acknowledgment  will 
produce  a  war  with  Spain,  let  them  remember  that  Cuba  is  a 
hostage  for  her  peace.  The  moment  she  fires  a  gun  at  us,  we 
shall  occupy  that  island  and  her  dominion  over  it  will  cease 
forever.  And  England,  in  aiding  Spain,  would  only  hasten 
the  downfall  of  her  favorite  colonial  system — a  coalition  between 
Colombia,  Mexico,  and  the  United  States  would  convince  her 
of  her  folly.  It  would  be  better  for  us  if  our  statesmen  would 
look  less  eastward,  and  more  southward  than  they  do  at  present. 
Some  statesmen  hold  that  nations  whose  political  principles 
and  opinions  have  been  formed  in  the  school  of  despotism  must 
undergo  long  periods  of  probationary  preparation  before  they 
can  be  qualified  to  manage  the  affairs  of  self-government.  This 
is  but  a  modification  of  the  exploded  maxim,  "that  the  people 
know  not  how  to  govern,' ' — that  kings  must  save  them  from 
their  worst  enemies,  themselves.  Such  opinions,  if  true,  form 
no  argument  against  the  policy  or  justice  of  acknowledging  the 
nations  of  America.  If  true,  in  former  ages,  and  on  the  old 
continent,  they  are  more  than  doubtful  in  modern  times,  and 
in  the  new  hemisphere.  The  fact  is  that  the  present  and  past 
ages  are  alike  in  nothing.  The  whole  civilized  world  is  under 
the  dominion  of  a  different  mind.  Men  and  nations  are  shak- 
ing off  their  mental  imbecilities  and  preparing  themselves  to 
regulate  their  own  affairs.  It  was  necessary  that  moral  regen- 
eration should  precede  political  reform;  and  thus  it  has  hap- 
pened. A  great  moral  revolution  has  occurred,  and  is  occurring. 
The  spirit  of  the  age  is  busy — reformation  is  everywhere  at 
work,  and  upon  all  subjects.  "We  see  the  beginning,  not  the  end 
of  revolutions.  No  statesman,  no  nation,  should  mistake  the 
character  and  fashion  of  the  times.  Every  thing  in  fifty  years 
has  changed,  and  every  thing  is  changing.  "Nothing  of  the 
future  will  resemble  what  is  past."  We  live  in  the  crisis  of  all 
ages.    The  whole  civilized  world  is  laboring  in  a  crisis — a  great 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  227 

moral  crisis — a  great  political  crisis — a  great  commercial  crisis. 
Nations  have  changed  their  moral  characters,  and  political 
opinions  and  governments  must  change  their  form  and  purpose. 
Formerly  the  sword  was  umpire  of  the  world;  and  then  the 
maxim  grew  that  nations  were  incapable  of  self-command.  Now 
public  opinion  is  the  great  chancellor  of  nations.  All  tongues 
and  kindreds  own  its  jurisdiction,  and  kings  and  subjects  are 
submissive  to  its  rule;  none  dare  oppose  its  high  authority — 
none  with  impunity  resist  its  just  decrees.  Wars  were  fought 
formerly  for  families  and  dynasties;  for  the  rights  of  thrones 
and  prerogatives  of  crowns ;  and  then  the  people  were  assuredly 
their  own  worst  enemies.  Now  men  fight  for  written  consti- 
tutions ;  for  the  rights  of  man  and  prerogatives  of  nations ;  and, 
fighting,  learn  to  govern  for  themselves.  The  contest  now  is 
not  between  dynasties  and  diadems,  but  between  creeds,  and 
principles,  and  institutions. 

Nations  formerly  had  no  volition;  kings  thought  and  acted 
for  them,  rudely  pretending  that  their  subjects  had  no  capacity 
for  affairs  of  state.  But  now  the  will  of  nations  has  supremacy 
of  rank,  and  speaks  by  delegation  in  assembled  Congresses; 
and  now  we  find  more  talent — more  patriotic  feeling — more  pub- 
lic virtue — more  every  thing,  that  strengthens  and  improves 
the  social  system.  Time  was  when  kings  held  power  by  arro- 
gation,  and  used  it  at  their  pleasure  and  discretion;  and  then 
the  people  were  denounced  as  "a  many-headed  monster/'  The 
people  now  reclaim  all  power  as  inherent  in  themselves,  and 
delegate  it  only  as  a  trust;  and  now  nations  are  more  peaceful, 
more  prosperous,  more  happy,  and  more  just  than  formerly. 
History  speaks  only  of  alliances,  or  wars,  between  contemporary 
despots — now  nothing  is  talked  of  but  congresses,  and  consti- 
tutions, and  representative  governments.  And  do  we  find 
things  changing  for  the  worse?  The  spirit  of  the  age  is,  peace 
and  moderation.  It  is  the  spirit  of  free  government  and  written 
constitutions.  Its  conservative  principles  are — widespread 
knowledge,  equality  of  rights,  freedom  of  opinion,  and  frequent 
and  free  elections. 

The  spirit  of  past  ages  was  war  and  domination.  The  trade 
of  man,  of  all  the  sons  of  men,  was  war — from  the  first  con- 
queror down  to  76.  It  was  the  storm  of  empires.  It  raged 
unspent  and  unabated.  It  swept  along  the  field  of  time,  and  all 
was  desolation  that  was  left.  It  had  no  limits  but  the  margin 
of  the  world.  Its  stream  of  blood  flowed  on  from  age  to  age ; 
its  sources,  like  the  Nile,  unknown,  lost  in  the  desert  of  for- 
gotten years  j  but  still,  the  stream  rolled  on,  increasing  with  a 


228  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

thousand  tributary  torrents,  and  spreading  far  and  wide  its 
overwhelming  floods.  Such  was  the  history  of  past  times,  and 
of  the  olden  world.  Our  continent,  on  the  contrary,  is  the 
chosen  land  of  liberty — vineyard  of  the  God  of  peace;  and  we, 
its  husbandmen,  selected  by  the  unseen  will  of  Providence  to 
till  the  soil,  and  feed  the  famished  nations  with  the  food  of 
independence.  Let  us  perform  the  sacred  trust  impartially. 
It  is  our  duty,  as  a  free  people,  not  to  sanction  but  refute  the 
heresies  that  nations  are  incapable  of  managing  their  own 
concerns.  They  have  disabused  themselves  by  illustrious  ex- 
amples, and  we  should  be  careful  not  to  weaken  their  effect. 

It  is  the  will  of  Providence  that  this  continent  should  be  the 
arena  of  successive  revolutions — of  moral,  and  political,  and 
commercial  revolutions — the  theater  of  man's  political  regenera- 
tion— the  hemisphere  in  which  nations  should  be  reinstated  in 
their  rights,  and  reinvested  of  their  " long-lost  liberty."  On 
the  4th  of  July,  1776,  the  Congress  of  the  thirteen  States  de- 
clared their  independence.  On  this  day  (28th  March,  1822) 
the  assembled  Congress  of  the  Union  will  announce  the  inde- 
pendence of  all  the  nations  of  America.  These  are  glorious 
epochs.  Let  history  commemorate  them  as  coessential  in  the 
works  of  reformation.  Freemen  are  this  day  called  upon  to 
fraternize  with  freemen;  nations  to  fraternize  with  nations. 
All  the  Americas  are  summoned  to  embrace  as  friends  and 
equals,  and  make  a  lasting  covenant  of  peace.  It  is  not  the 
flight  of  a  false  prophet,  or  the  foundation  of  a  city,  the  birth- 
day of  a  petty  chieftain,  or  an  heir-apparent  that  we  are  as- 
sembled here  to  celebrate;  no;  a  continent  has  disenchained 
itself,  and  stands  unfettered  and  erect.  It  is  the  birthday  of  a 
hemisphere  redeemed.  It  is  the  jubilee  of  nations.  Let  the 
world  rejoice. 

If  experience  and  long  suffering  can  create  the  faculties  of 
self-government,  then  the  people  of  America  are  prepared  to 
manage  and  control  their  own  affairs.  For  three  long  centuries 
they  "clanked  the  chains"  of  lawless  power;  for  three  long 
lingering  ages  they  felt  the  "keen  lash"  and  galling  yoke  of 
despotism — each  generation  leaving  its  manacles  to  posterity  as 
their  only  heritage.  Continued  agonies  had  worn  away  the 
memory  of  better  times.  The  light  of  hope  had  left  the  Children 
of  the  Sun,  and  dark  despair,  like  soporific  drugs,  had  stupefied 
the  powers  of  will  and  faculties  of  life.  They  slept  to  mitigate 
their  pain;  for  nations  sleep  and  never  die.  But  the  day  of 
their  deliverance  was  at  hand.  The  Spirit  of  God  was  abroad 
in  the  sky.     It  called,  and  the  slumbering  nations  awoke.     It 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  229 

breathed  the  electric  fire  of  freedom  on  the  air,  and  a  whole 
continent  ran  simultaneously  to  arms!  One  great,  one  godlike 
purpose  animated  all — it  was  death  or  independence!  Like  us, 
they  pledged  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor, 
to  live  as  freemen,  or  die  in  its  defence.  They  fought  from 
field  to  field.  A  thousand  battles  left  the  cause  in  doubt;  a 
thousand  passions  mingled  in  the  fray ;  and  all  that  history  has 
told  of  savage  cruelty,  ferocious  vengeance,  rapine,  plunder, 
treachery,  cold-blooded  massacre,  and  every  violence  and  every 
crime  that  shocks  humanity  was  perpetrated  over  and  over 
again  upon  all  ages,  sexes,  and  conditions.  But  the  God  of 
Battles  fought  on  freedom's  side,  and,  sickening  at  the  scene  of 
carnage  and  of  desolation,  and  hastening  to  end  it,  he  took  a 
Bolivar  and  consecrated  him  a  Washington,  and,  putting  in  his 
hand  a  flaming  sword,  commanded  him  to  go  forth  to  the  utter- 
most ends  of  the  continent,  conquering  and  to  conquer,  until 
oppression  should  surcease,  and  man  learn  tyranny  no  more. 
And  behold  the  work  is  finished,  and  Colombia  is  free,  and  all 
the  Americas  are  free — free  as  ourselves;  for  there  all  power  is 
acknowledged  in  the  people,  and  vassalage  abolished,  and  un- 
known ;  for  there  all  officers  are  elective,  and  held  by  the  tenure 
of  the  law  and  the  constitution ;  for  there,  free  in  their  property, 
their  persons,  and  religion — 

"They  own  no  Lord  but  Him  in  heaven, 
No  power  but  what  consent  has  given." 

Mr.  Garnett  submitted  the  following  declaration  of 
his  reasons  for  not  voting  to  recognize  the  republics: 

I  voted  against  the  recognition  of  the  late  American  prov- 
inces of  Spain,  not  because  I  am  opposed  to  their  independence ; 
on  the  contrary,  I  rejoice  in  its  accomplishment,  and  believe  that 
it  would  be  even  better  for  them  to  be  independent  with  a 
worse  form  of  government  than  to  be  dependent  with  a  better. 
But  I  voted  against  it  because  I  am  of  opinion  that  recognition 
must  be  either  the  mere  formal  declaration  of  a  fact  which  will 
be  inoperative,  and  therefore  useless,  or  it  must  be  substantial, 
and  propose  some  advantage  to  one  or  both  of  the  parties — that, 
if  it  be  substantial,  it  must  be  intended  either  to  impart  to  the 
party  recognized  the  physical  means,  or  the  moral  force,  neces- 
sary to  accomplish  their  revolution,  or  to  establish  relations  for 
the  mutual  benefit  of  both  the  parties  concerned — that  the  idea 
of  assistance,  to  consummate  a  revolution,  concedes  that  it  is 
not  completed,  and  is  incompatible  with  the  neutral  obligations 


230  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

to  the  country  claiming  jurisdiction;  and  that  the  second  alter- 
native of  mutual  benefit  reduces  it  to  a  question  of  policy  in 
which  it  is  only  necessary  to  balance  the  good  with  the  evil : 

That  we  have  no  right  to  recognize  nations  because  they 
have  adopted  forms  of  government  congenial  with  our  own,  if 
our  recognition  would  not  otherwise  be  proper;  and  to  main- 
tain this  doctrine  would  be  to  assert  the  odious  principle  of 
legitimacy,  that  nations  have  a  right  to  interfere  with  the  in- 
ternal concerns  of  each  other,  which  must  be  beneficial  or  in- 
jurious accordingly  as  free  principles  or  despotism  happens 
to  prevail  in  the  world ;  and  that,  for  this  reason  also,  the  pres- 
ent is  a  question  of  policy,  not  of  principle: 

That,  the  period  having  past  when  our  recognition  of  the 
independent  Governments  of  South  America  could  be  of  any 
substantial  benefit  to  them,  their  independence  being  already 
firmly  established,  it  is  impolitic  in  us,  for  the  sake  of  any  ad- 
vantages which  either  party  is  likely  to  derive  from  an  inter- 
course at  this  time,  to  risk  those  we  already  possess. 

That,  if  Spain  only,  through  mistaken  pride,  resents  our 
act,  though  perhaps  too  feeble  to  carry  on  a  war  with  us, 
she  may  interdict  our  commerce  with  her  remaining  colonies, 
and  thus  deprive  us  of  a  trade  more  valuable  than  any  we  can 
expect  to  substitute,  for  a  long  time,  with  the  independent  prov- 
inces: 

That,  if  the  importance  of  this  trade  to  those  colonies  should 
induce  them  to  revolt,  or  our  recognition  itself  should  produce 
in  them  revolutionary  movements,  the  island  of  Cuba,  the  most 
valuable  to  us,  will  either  fall  under  the  dominion  of  the  colored 
population,  or  of  our  jealous  and  ambitious  rival,  England,  or 
we  must  occupy  it  ourselves,  at  the  expense  of  a  war  with  that 
rival,  who  will  certainly  seek  to  prevent  that  occupation  at  the 
same  cost: 

And,  finally,  that  circumstances  do  not  warrant  precipitancy 
— that  the  great  interests  of  both  parties  will  be  endangered 
without  any  adequate  motive  for  the  risk;  and  that  the  tempo- 
rary eclat  which  priority  of  recognition  may  obtain  for  us  is 
not  to  be  put  in  opposition  to  the  great  permanent  interests  of 
both  countries,  which  will  be  best  promoted  by  adhering,  on 
their  part,  to  the  sage  monitions  inculcated  in  the  language  of 
one  of  their  most  distinguished  patriots,  Rivadavia,  who  de- 
clared, as  late  as  September  last,  "that  they  did  not  seek  the 
recognition  of  other  nations,  because  it  must  operate,  if  unsuc- 
cessful, to  the  humiliation  of  the  provinces,  and,  if  successful,  to 
mislead  the  people,  by  persuading  them  that  such  recognition 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  231 

was  all-sufficient  to  their  political  existence  and  happiness ;  that 
the  most  efficacious  system  would  be  to  establish  order  and  wise 
institutions  of  government  throughout  the  provinces,  and  to 
show  themselves  worthy  of  the  fraternity  of  other  nations,  when 
it  would  be  voluntarily  offered";  and,  on  our  part,  by  abstain- 
ing to  propose  that  fraternity,  until  the  elements  of  their  politi- 
cal society,  purified  from  the  crimes  and  corruption  engendered 
by  former  oppression,  have  settled  down  into  order,  and  they 
have  fully  demonstrated  their  capacity  for  self-government,  and 
until  we  are  mutually  in  a  condition  to  derive  advantages  from 
a  free  intercourse,  which  will  overbalance  the  considerations  of 
the  evil  which  immediate  recognition  presents,  without  a  pros- 
pect of  good. 

In  his  message  of  December  2,  1823,  President  Mon- 
roe announced  the  famous  doctrine  that  bears  his  name. 
It  consisted  of  two  declarations  which  appeared  in 
widely  separated  parts  of  the  message : 

The  first  declaration  was : 

That  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent 
condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are  hence- 
forth not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by 
any  European  power. 

The  occasion  for  this  declaration  was  as  follows: 
Russia  claimed  the  Pacific  coast  as  far  southward  as 
51  degrees  north  latitude.  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  opposed  this  claim,  from  54  degrees  and  40  min- 
utes southward,  and  disputed  between  themselves  the 
possession  not  only  of  the  coast  but  of  the  interior  West- 
ern country,  the  former  claiming  that  its  southern 
boundary  was  46  degrees  (the  line  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbian  river),  and  the  latter  that  its  northern  boun- 
dary was  54  degrees  and  40  minutes.  In  1818  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  agreed  by  treaty  to  a 
joint  occupancy  for  ten  years  of  the  disputed  territory. 
Early  in  this  period  Great  Britain  began  to  explore  the 
country,  presumably  preparatory  to  settling  it,  and 
thereby  acquiring  the  "nine  points  of  the  law"  by  the 
time  of  adjudicating  the  ownership. 

On  July  2,  1823,  John  Quincy  Adams,  Secretary  of 


232  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

State,  wrote  to  Richard  Rush,  American  Minister  to 
Great  Britain,  a  declaration  for  Rush  to  present  to  the 
British  Government  that  the  continent  of  America  "is 
occupied  by  civilized  nations  and  is  accessible  to  Euro- 
peans and  to  each  other  on  that  footing  alone/ '  meaning 
by  this  that  no  more  original  titles  could  be  secured 
by  discovery,  exploration,  or  settlement.  Five  months 
later,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  rest  of  the  Cabinet, 
Secretary  Adams  caused  President  Monroe  to  insert  the 
declaration  to  this  effect  in  his  message. 

The  British  Government  denied  that  the  declaration 
was  in  accord  with  facts,  asserting  that  there  still  re- 
mained land  on  the  American  continent  to  which  no 
original  title  had  been  acquired. 

The  second  declaration  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  as 
we  shall  see,  was  also  inspired,  and  was  also  in  thorough 
accord  with  the  maxim  * '  America  for  Americans ' '  which 
had  been  and  was  to  continue  the  guiding  principle  of 
the  President's  foreign  policy.    It  ran: 

In  the  wars  of  the  European  powers,  in  matters  relating  to 
themselves,  we  have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport 
with  our  policy  so  to  do.  It  is  only  when  our  rights  are  invaded, 
or  seriously  menaced,  that  we  resent  injuries,  or  make  prepara- 
tion for  our  defence.  With  the  movements  in  this  hemisphere, 
we  are,  of  necessity,  more  immediately  connected,  and  by  causes 
which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  impartial  observ- 
ers. The  political  system  of  the  allied  powers  is  essentially  dif- 
ferent, in  this  respect,  from  that  of  America.  This  difference 
proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in  their  respective  Governments. 
And  to  the  defence  of  our  own,  which  has  been  achieved  by 
the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  and  matured  by  the  wis- 
dom of  their  most  enlightened  citizens,  and  under  which  we 
have  enjoyed  unexampled  felicity,  this  whole  nation  is  devoted. 
We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable  relations 
existing  between  the  United  States  and  those  powers  to  declare 
that  we  should  consider  any  attempt. on  their  part  to  extend 
'  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous 
to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  depend- 
encies of  any  European  power  we  have  not  interfered,  and 
shall  not  interfere.  But,  with  the  Governments  who  have  de- 
clared their  independence,  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  inde- 
pendence we  have,  on  great  consideration,  and  on  just  principles, 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  233 

acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  pur- 
pose of  oppressing  them,  or  controlling,  in  any  other  manner, 
their  destiny,  by  any  European  power,  in  any  other  light  than 
as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the 
United  States.  In  the  war  between  those  new  Governments  and 
Spain,  we  declared  our  neutrality  at  the  time  of  their  recog- 
nition, and  to  this  we  have  adhered,  and  shall  continue  to  ad- 
here, provided  no  change  shall  occur,  which,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  competent  authorities  of  this  Government,  shall  make  a 
corresponding  change,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  indis- 
pensable to  their  security. 

The  occasion  of  this  declaration  was  the  proposition 
of  the  Holy  Alliance  at  its  congress  at  Verona  in  1822, 
that  the  allied  European  powers  should  check  the  spread 
of  republicanism  throughout  the  world  by  interfer- 
ing with  its  greatest  source  of  propagation,  namely, 
America.  This  portended  that  the  monarchies  of  Eu- 
rope would  either  assist  Spain  to  recover  her  revolted 
colonies  by  force,  would  seize  them  for  themselves,  or 
would  establish  them  as  dependent  monarchies,  and 
even  that  the  greatest  exemplar  of  the  blessings  of  pop- 
ular government,  the  United  States,  might  be  ruined  by 
such  means  as  discriminations  in  trade,  if  not  actual 
warfare. 

When  thA  declaration  of  Verona  became  known  the 
British  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  George  Canning, 
wrote  to  Mr.  Rush,  the  American  minister,  urging  the 
United  States  to  oppose  the  proposed  European  inter- 
vention in  the  affairs  of  the  South  American  republics. 
Rush  sent  the  letter  to  Washington,  and  the  President, 
after  consultation  with  Thomas  Jefferson,  followed  its 
advice  by  the  enunciation  of  his  celebrated  Doctrine. 

The  determined  attitude  of  the  United  States  effect- 
ively strengthened  the  British  Government  in  blocking 
the  proposal  of  European  absolutism  to  destroy  repub- 
licanism in  America,  and  was  the  earnest  of  Canning's 
famous  prophecy  that  "the  New  World  had  been  called 
into  existence  to  redress  the  balance  of  the  Old,  and 
would  in  time  outweigh  and  topple  over  the  fabrics  of 
kingcraft  upon  which  so  many  wise  men  had  labored  for 
thousands  of  years." 


234  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

The  South  American  republics  were  greatly  delighted 
with  the  declaration  which,  their  wish  being  father  to 
the  thought,  they  construed  as  pledging  the  United 
States  actively  to  defend  their  territories  from  Euro- 
pean colonization,  instead  of  encouraging  each  country 
to  defend  its  own  integrity.  This  view  was  chiefly  in- 
strumental in  causing  the  countries,  early  in  1825,  to 
call  a  congress  of  all  the  American  republics,  including 
the  United  States,  to  meet  in  Panama  to  discuss  ques- 
tions of  mutual  concern.  This  broad  construction  of 
the  Doctrine  was  from  the  beginning  also  the  popular 
one,  and  has  become,  by  an  increasing  extension  of  the 
principle  in  such  cases  as  Yucatan  (1848),  Mexico 
(1861-65),  and  Venezuela  (1895),  the  official  construc- 
tion, and  as  such  is  acquiesced  in  even  by  some  European 
powers.  It  will  be  interesting  for  the  reader  to  note, 
in  the  debates  upon  these  cases,  the  early  opposition  to 
the  Doctrine,  even  in  its  mildest  construction,  gradu- 
ally disappearing  until  the  broadest  construction  is 
scarcely  contested. 

The  Panama  Congress 

In  his  first  message  to  Congress  (December  6,  1825) 
President  John  Quincy  Adams  announced  that  he  had 
accepted  an  invitation  from  the  South  American  repub- 
lics to  send  delegates  to  a  Pan-American  Congress  to 
be  held  at  Panama,  these  delegates  to  take  part  in  the 
deliberations  "as  far  as  may  be  compatible  with  that 
neutrality  from  which  it  is  neither  our  intention  nor  the 
desire  of  the  other  American  states  that  we  depart." 
Colombia,  the  foremost  of  the  republics,  had  voiced  the 
invitation.  Among  the  subjects  for  consideration  which 
it  suggested  for  the  congress  was  * '  the  means  of  making 
effectual"  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Great  opposition  to  taking  part  in  this  congress  as 
likely  to  embroil  us  in  foreign  disputes  at  once  became 
apparent,  and  the  President,  who  was  ardently  in  favor 
of  the  project,  on  December  26  sent  a  special  message 
on  the  subject  to  the  Senate,  which  was  intended  to 
allay  objections.    It  said  "an  agreement  between  all  the 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  235 

parties  represented  at  the  meeting  that  each  will  guard 
by  its  own  means  against  the  establishment  of  any  future 
European  colony  within  its  borders  may  be  advisable." 
On  March  14,  1826,  the  Senate  began  the  discussion 
on  the  advisability  of  sending  delegates  to  the  congress. 
The  debate  was  in  secret,  but  with  the  understanding 
that  each  speaker  might  publish  his  speech  after  the 
question  had  been  decided.  Of  this  privilege  several 
senators  availed  themselves.  Says  Senator  Thomas  H. 
Benton,  in  his  "Debates  of  Congress,,: 

It  was  the  principal  debate  of  the  session,  and  entered 
largely  into  the  contest,  then  hot,  for  party  supremacy — the 
Administration  staking  itself  upon  the  mission,  as  the  opposi- 
tion did  against  it.  It  was  carried  through  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  but  deprived  of  its  prestige  under  the  heavy  blows 
which  it  received ;  and  became  abortive  from  the  failure  of  the 
congress  ever  to  meet.  Losing,  as  it  has,  the  hot  interest  de- 
rived from  party  contention,  the  debate  (stripped  of  temporary 
topics)  retains  a  permanent  value  from  the  ability  which  it 
developed,  and  the  views  of  national  policy  which  it  opened. 

The  measure  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  24  to  19,  and 
delegates  were  appointed  to  the  congress.  One  of  these, 
however,  died,  and  the  other  failed  to  reach  Panama 
in  time  for  the  first  session  of  the  congress.  Owing  to 
disappointment  of  the  South  American  republics  at  the 
conservative  attitude  of  the  United  States  a  second  ses- 
sion was  not  held. 

A  leading  speaker  in  support  of  the  measure  was 
Josiah  S.  Johnston  [La.].  It  was  strenuously  opposed 
by  Robert  Y.  Hayne  [S.  C]  and  Levi  Woodbury  [N.  H.]. 


The  Panama  Mission 

Senate,  March  14-16,  1826 

Senator  Hayne. — No  man  can  deny  that  the  Congress  of 
Panama  is  to  be  composed  of  deputies  from  belligerent  States, 
and  that  its  objects  are  essentially  belligerent.  These  objects  are 
not  concealed  but  are  publicly  avowed,  and  known  to  the  world. 
It  is  to  be  an  assembly  of  confederates,  differing  very  little  from 


236  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  old  Congress  under  our  Articles  of  Confederation,  to  which, 
indeed,  it  bears  a  striking  resemblance. 

The  question  arises  whether  a  neutral  state  can  join  in  such 
a  council  without  violating  its  neutrality?  Can  the  United 
States  lawfully  send  deputies  to  a  congress  of  the  confederated 
Spanish  American  states? — a  congress  which  not  only  has  ob- 
jects confessedly  connected  with  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  but 
when  it  is  notorious  that  these  belligerent  objects  create  the  very 
occasion  of  its  assembling?  Can  we  do  so  without  departing 
from  our  neutral  relations  toward  Spain?  Is  it  possible,  Mr. 
President,  that  this  can  be  seriously  questioned  It  will  not  bear 
an  argument.  There  can  be  no  difference  under  the  law  of  na- 
tions— for  there  is  none  in  reason  or  justice — between  aiding  a 
belligerent  in  council  or  in  action — between  consulting  with  him 
in  respect  to  belligerent  measures  or  furnishing  the  men  and 
money  to  accomplish  them.  A  strict  and  honorable  neutrality 
must  keep  us  out  of  any  meeting  not  having  peaceful  objects 
exclusively.  The  law  of  nations  in  this  respect  cannot  differ 
from  those  rules  of  municipal  law  founded  in  the  common  sense 
of  mankind  which  involve  in  a  common  guilt  all  who  associate 
with  those  engaged  in  any  unlawful  enterprise.  It  is  not  per- 
mitted to  individuals,  nor  can  it  be  permitted  to  nations,  to 
excuse  themselves  for  acting  with  those  engaged  in  belligerent 
enterprises  by  alleging  that  their  own  purposes  are  peaceful. 
Sir,  I  hold  that,  if  you  go  into  council  at  all  with  such  powers, 
you  become  answerable  for  all  their  acts. 

But  an  attempt  is  made  to  remove  all  our  apprehensions  on 
this  subject  (and  it  comes  from  a  high  quarter,  too)  by  the 
assurance  that  Spain  is  just  about  to  acknowledge  the  independ- 
ence of  her  former  colonies,  under  our  mediation.  The  Secre- 
tary of  State,  in  his  report  which  accompanies  the  President's 
message  of  the  9th  January,  in  answer  to  our  call  for  informa- 
tion, transmits  a  mass  of  documents  to  show  that  our  Govern- 
ment has  invoked  the  aid  of  Russia;  that  the  emperor  has 
interfered  at  our  request ;  and  that  there  is  a  flattering  prospect 
of  speedy  and  entire  success.  So  says  Mr.  Middleton — so  says 
Mr.  Clay.  But,  Mr.  President,  it  fortunately  happens  that  the 
Senate,  on  the  30th  January,  made  another  call  for  information 
on  this  point,  and  the  answer  of  the  President,  of  the  1st  of 
February,  dispels  the  illusion  entirely.  The  three  letters  of  Mr. 
Everett,  there  disclosed,  demonstrate  that  there  is  no  hope,  what- 
ever, of  a  peace.  The  Minister  of  the  Spanish  Government  (Mr. 
Zea)  declares  that  the  determination  of  the  king,  on  that  sub- 
ject, is  unalterable — he  will  stand  upon  his  naked  right  and 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  237 

look  to  Providence,  should  all  other  means  fail.  But  this  is  not 
all.  The  Russian  Minister  concurs  in  the  views  of  Mr.  Zea,  and 
the  British  Minister  will  not  interfere. 

The  first  great  subject  to  which  our  attention  at  this  con- 
gress is  to  be  called  arises  out  of  the  pledge  which  Mr.  Monroe 
is  supposed  to  have  given  "not  to  permit  any  foreign  power 
to  interfere  in  the  war  between  Spain  and  her  colonies";  and 
it  appears  from  the  correspondence  to  be  the  special  object  of 
the  new  states  to  get  us  to  enter  into  treaties  to  redeem  that 
pledge,  according  to  the  construction  they  have  chosen  to  put 
upon  it,  and  in  which,  I  am  sorry  to  add,  the  Executive  seems 
to  have  acquiesced.  Mr.  Obregon  tells  us  that  the  United  States 
are  only  expected  to  take  part  in  those  matters  which  the  "late 
Administration  pointed  out  as  being  of  general  interest,  for 
which  reason,"  says  he,  "one  of  the  subjects  which  will  occupy 
the  attention  of  the  congress  will  be  the  resistance  or  opposition 
to  the  interference  of  any  neutral  nation  in  the  question  and 
war  of  independence  between  the  new  powers  of  the  continent 
and  Spain ' ' ;  and  ' '  that,  as  the  powers  of  America  are  of  accord 
as  to  resistance,  it  behooves  them  to  discuss  the  means  of  giving 
to  that  resistance  all  possible  force,  that  the  evil  may  be  met, 
if  it  cannot  be  avoided;  and  the  only  means  of  accomplishing 
this  object  is  by  a  previous  concert  as  to  the  mode  in  which  each 
of  them  shall  lend  its  cooperation:  for,  otherwise,  resistance 
would  operate  partially  and  in  a  manner  much  less  certain  and 
effective. 

1 '  The  opposition  to  colonization  in  America  by  the  European 
powers  will  be  another  of  the  questions  which  may  be  discussed, 
and  which  is  in  like  predicament  with  the  foregoing." 

Mr.  Salazar  holds  language  on  this  subject  still  more  explicit. 

Now  I  do  positively  deny  that  Mr.  Monroe  ever  pledged  this 
nation  to  go  to  war,  or  make  treaties,  to  prevent  the  interfer- 
ence of  any  European  nation  in  the  present  contest.  I  deny 
that  he  had  a  right  to  make  any  such  pledge;  and  most  of  all 
do  I  deny  that  any  sanction  has  been  given  to  such  an  idea  by 
the  Senate,  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  the  States,  or  by 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  language  of  Mr.  Monroe 
is  extremely  vague  and  indefinite.  That  great  and  good  man 
well  knew  that  he  had  no  power  to  use  any  but  a  moral  force 
on  that  question;  and  beyond  this  moral  influence  over  the 
councils  of  the  nations  of  Europe  he  neither  attempted  nor 
desired  to  go.  He  well  knew — every  intelligent  man  in  the 
United  States  knows — that  this  nation  is  not  now  and  never  has 
been  prepared  to  go  to  war  for  the  independence  of  South 


238  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

America.  The  new  states  have  always  carried  with  them  our 
warmest  wishes  for  their  success — but  beyond  the  indulgence  of 
a  sincere  and  friendly  sympathy  we  have  never  been  willing 
to  proceed.  Mr.  Monroe's  declaration,  I  repeat,  was  intended 
to  produce  a  moral  effect  abroad ;  he  designed  it  for  the  atmos- 
phere of  Europe,  and  therefore  it  was  couched  in  such  terms 
that,  while  it  did  not  commit  us  to  any  overt  acts,  it  left  foreign 
nations  under  a  vague  impression  of  what  we  might  do  if  the 
event  alluded  to  should  ever  happen.  The  substance  of  Mr. 
Monroe's  statement  was  "that  he  should  consider  any  attempt 
on  their  part  (the  powers  of  Europe)  to  extend  their  system  to 
any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and 
safety,"  and  as  "the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition 
toward  the  United  States."  It  is  obvious  that  we  are  left  by 
this  pledge  altogether  free  to  act  in  any  emergency  according 
to  circumstances  and  a  sense  of  our  own  interests.  We  have 
incurred  no  obligations  to  others  by  the  declaration;  and  it  is 
our  policy  to  incur  none.  But  it  now  appears  that  the  new 
states  have  conceived  themselves  entitled  to  our  aid  whenever 
foreign  interference  shall  be  threatened,  and  (what  is  truly 
unfortunate)  it  further  appears  that  the  new  Administration 
have  acknowledged  their  claims  and  admitted  our  obligations; 
they  have  acted,  and  are  now  about  to  act,  on  the  presumption 
that  the  Spanish  American  states  may  rightfully  claim,  and 
that  we  are  bound  to  grant,  our  assistance  against  all  nations 
who  may  "hereafter  interfere  in  any  way  whatever  in  the  ques- 
tion and  war  of  independence. ' 9  Nay,  so  far  have  our  Govern- 
ment gone  in  this  respect  that  they  have  actually  claimed  com- 
mercial privileges  from  these  states  on  the  ground  that  we  are 
to  be  considered  as  "one  of  the  American  nations,"  and  "within 
the  pale  of  the  great  American  system";  that  we  are  "pre- 
pared to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  contest  which  will  arise  should 
any  foreign  power  attempt  to  interfere." 

To  show  how  far  our  Government  have  proceeded  in  this 
course  I  must  be  permitted  to  read  a  few  pages  from  the  docu- 
ments before  us.  In  the  letter  of  our  minister  to  Mexico  to 
the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  28th  September,  1825,  after  giv- 
ing an  account  of  the  difficulties  which  had  arisen  in  making  a 
treaty  with  Mexico,  in  consequence  of  the  desire  of  that  govern- 
ment to  introduce  an  article  putting  it  in  their  power  to  grant 
special  commercial  privileges  to  the  other  Spanish  American 
states,  he  informs  us  that  he  insisted  that  we  should  be  entitled 
to  similar  privileges  because  "we  were  bound  to  them  by  simi- 
lar fraternal  ties,"    To  some  objections  urged  against  our  claims 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  239 

on  the  ground  that  we  had  not  yet  taken  part  in  the  war,  our 
minister  replied  in  the  following  words,  viz:  "To  these  obser- 
vations I  replied  that,  against  the  power  of  Spain,  they  had 
given  sufficient  proof  that  they  required  no  assistance,  and  the 
United  States  had  pledged  themselves  not  to  permit  any  other 
power  to  interfere  either  with  their  independence  or  form  of 
government ;  and  that,  as  in  the  event  of  such  an  attempt  being 
made  by  the  powers  of  Europe,  we  would  be  compelled  to  take 
the  most  active  and  efficient  part,  and  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the 
contest,  it  was  not  just  that  we  should  be  placed  on  a  less 
favorable  footing  than  the  other  republics  of  America,  whose 
existence  we  were  ready  to  support  at  such  hazards. M  The 
minister  then  goes  on  to  state  that,  after  explaining  what  we 
had  already  done,  he  declared  "what  further  we  were  ready  to 
do  in  order  to  defend  their  rights  and  liberties;  but  that  this 
could  only  be  expected  from  us,  and  could  only  be  accomplished 
by  a  strict  union  of  all  the  American  republics  on  terms  of 
perfect  equality  and  reciprocity;  and  repeated  that  it  was  the 
obvious  policy  of  Europe  to  divide  us  into  small  confederacies, 
with  separate  and  distinct  interests,  and  as  manifestly  ours  to 
form  a  single  great  confederacy,  which  might  oppose  one  united 
front  to  the  attacks  of  our  enemies.,, 

And  now,  sir,  I  must  put  the  question  directly  and  seriously 
to  the  Senate,  whether  they  are  prepared  to  send  ministers  to 
the  congress  of  Panama  for  the  purpose  of  making  effectual 
this  pledge  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  construed 
by  the  present  Administration  and  understood  by  the  Spanish 
American  states?  Whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  others,  I, 
for  one,  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  that  I  am  not  prepared 
for  any  such  proceeding;  I  am  not  ready  now  to  declare  that 
I  will  involve  my  country  in  all  the  horrors  of  war  for  the 
establishment  of  South  American'  independence;  and  even  if  I 
were  prepared  to  say  that,  rather  than  permit  the  interference 
of  any  foreign  nation  in  the  contest,  "we  must  fight,' '  still  I 
should  think  it  wise  and  prudent  not  to  commit  ourselves  by 
treaties  or  compacts,  but  to  reserve  the  right  to  act  when  the 
contingency  shall  happen,  as  our  feelings  or  interests  may  then 
dictate.  It  is  of  the  last  importance  that  we  should  reserve 
this  privilege  to  ourselves ;  that  we  should  enter  into  no  stipula- 
tions whatever  with  other  nations  on  such  a  subject.  But  should 
we  send  ministers  to  Panama  for  these  objects  we  will  not  be 
free  to  pursue  this  course.  If  our  ministers  go  there  with  our 
sanction,  committed  as  we  know  the  President  to  be,  we  must 
either  sanction  the  compacts  which  may  be  entered  into  or  dis- 


240  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

appoint  the  just  expectations  which  we  will  have  raised.  In 
the  one  case  our  interests  will  be  sacrificed,  and  in  the  other 
our  friendly  relations  with  the  new  states  will  be  interrupted. 
Let  us,  then,  avoid  this  dilemma  by  not  placing  ourselves  volun- 
tarily in  a  situation  which  will  leave  us  only  a  choice  of  diffi- 
culties and  impose  upon  us  the  hard  necessity  of  offending  our 
friends  or  injuring  ourselves. 

Connected  with  this  object  is  another  bearing  a  close  resem- 
blance to  it :  ' '  the  opposition  to  colonization  in  America ' '  by  any 
European  power.  If  by  this  it  is  to  be  understood  that  we  are 
to  interfere  to  obstruct  the  settlement  of  the  territories  in 
America  owned  by  Russia  or  England,  it  must  speedily  involve 
us  in  an  unjust  and  unnecessary  war.  But  if  the  design  is  to 
enter  into  compacts  with  the  South  American  states  not  to 
permit  any  colonization  within  our  respective  limits,  or  if  we 
are  to  make  common  cause  in  resisting  all  such  attempts,  then 
I  must  boldly  declare  that  the  scheme  is,  in  the  one  case,  deroga- 
tory to  our  honor,  and,  in  the  other,  dangerous  to  our  safety. 
What !  is  it  come  to  this,  that  the  United  States  of  America  are 
to  come  under  obligations  to  others;  to  bind  themselves  to 
nations  of  yesterday,  to  preserve  their  own  territories  from 
invasion  and  their  homes  and  their  altars  from  pollution  ?  Nay, 
are  we,  at  this  period  of  our  history,  to  enter  into  solemn  vows 
that  we  will  neither  permit  ourselves  to  be  conquered  nor  to  be 
sold?  Sir,  the  idea  of  treaty  stipulations  against  colonization 
is  degrading  and  unmeaning,  unless  it  is  intended  that  we  shall 
guarantee  to  the  new  states  the  possession  of  their  territories; 
and,  if  that  is  the  plan,  it  is  as  unwise  as  it  is  dangerous. 

I  proceed  next  to  consider  the  great  object  (which  seems  to 
lie  so  near  to  the  hearts  of  some  of  our  statesmen)  of  building 
up  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  "an  American  system" — terms 
which,  when  applied  to  our  domestic  policy,  mean  restriction 
and  monopoly,  and,  when  applied  to  our  foreign  policy,  mean 
*  ■  entangling  alliances, ' '  both  of  them  the  fruit  of  that  prurient 
spirit  which  will  not  suffer  the  nation  to  advance  gradually  in 
the  development  of  its  great  resources  and  the  fulfilment  of  its 
high  destinies,  but  would  accelerate  its  march  by  the  most  un- 
natural and  destructive  stimulants.  "As  Europe  (says  Mr. 
Canas)  has  formed  a  continental  system,  America  should  form 
a  system  for  herself."  "The  mere  assembling  (says  Mr.  Sala- 
zar)  of  the  congress,  by  showing  the  ease  with  which  America 
can  combine,  will  increase  our  political  importance."  In  plain 
terms,  Mr.  President,  we  are  called  upon  to  form  a  Holy  Alli- 
ance on  this  side  of  the  water,  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  Holy 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  241 

Alliance  on  the  other  side  of  it.  Are  the  people  of  this  coun- 
try prepared  for  that?  What  is  there  in  the  history  or  char- 
acter of  the  Holy  Alliance  that  makes  it  a  fit  subject  for  our 
imitation?  This  combination  of  nations  at  peace,  to  maintain 
certain  principles  and  institutions,  contains  the  most  atrocious 
violation  of  the  natural  and  social  rights  of  man  that  the  world 
has  ever  seen.  It  is  wrong — most  fatally  wrong — and  it  makes 
no  difference,  in  reason  or  justice,  what  the  principles  to  be 
maintained  are.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  national  independence 
that  every  country  should  be  left  free  to  adopt  and  to  change 
its  principles  and  its  policy  according  to  its  own  views  of  its 
own  interests;  and  from  the  very  bottom  of  my  soul  I  abhor 
the  idea  of  combinations  among  sovereign  states  for  any  pur- 
pose whatever.  Great  Britain,  the  only  nation  in  Europe  that 
possesses  the  shadow  of  freedom,  has  refused  to  join  the  Holy 
Alliance.  I  hope  we  shall  follow  her  example  in  having  nothing 
to  do  with  this  "great  American  Conf ederaey . ' ' 

I  have  given  to  this  subject,  Mr.  President,  the  most  dispas- 
sionate consideration,  and  I  am  free  to  confess  that,  whether  I 
consider  the  measure  itself,  the  form  of  the  invitation,  or  the 
course  which  has  been  pursued  in  relation  to  it,  my  mind  is 
filled  with  the  most  unqualified  astonishment.  That  the  Presi- 
dent should  have  committed  himself,  committed  us,  and  com- 
mitted the  nation,  and  that  the  question  should  have  been 
brought  before  us,  will  form,  it  appears  to  me,  a  curious  page  in 
the  history  of  this  country,  which  will  hereafter  be  referred  to 
with  peculiar  interest. 

Senator  Woodbury. — The  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Poinsett, 
October  25,  1825,  says,  no  longer  than  about  three  months  ago, 
when  an  invasion  by  France  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  was  believed 
at  Mexico,  the  United  Mexican  Government  promptly  called  on 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  through  you,  to  fulfil  the 
memorable  pledge  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his 
message  to  Congress,  of  December,  A.  D.  1823.  What  they 
would  have  done,  had  the  contingency  happened,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  a  dispatch  to  the  American  Minister  at  Paris. 
Then  follows  that  dispatch,  dated  October  25,  1825,  in  which 
he  deliberately  avows  that  "we  could  not  consent  to  the  occu- 
pation of  those  islands  by  any  other  European  power  than 
Spain  under  any  contingency  whatever.' '  The  same  sentiment 
is  repeated  to  Mr.  Middleton,  December  26,  1825,  "we  cannot 
allow  a  transfer  of  the  island  (of  Cuba)  to  any  European 
power. "  Has  it  indeed  come  to  this,  that  we  are  to  tell  the 
autocrat  of  fifty  millions  he  has  not  the  same  right  to  take  a 


242  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

transfer  of  Porto  Rico  as  we  had  to  take  a  transfer  of  Florida  ? 
Is  this  republicanism,  equal  rights,  and  received  national  law; 
or  is  it  some  marvelous  discovery  of  the  present  age  ?  And  are 
we  prepared,  by  this  mission,  to  back  up  by  a  war  the  menace 
to  France,  that  in  no  contingency  whatever  shall  she  be  allowed 
to  occupy  Cuba,  although  she  buy  it  of  Spain  by  as  fair  and 
as  honest  a  treaty  as  that  by  which  we  purchased  Louisiana  of 
France  herself? 

Are  these  the  doctrines  of  the  American  Congress,  or  of  the 
American  people,  or  do  they  savor  of  the  Holy  Alliance? 

Where,  also,  is  the  crisis — where  the  emergency  to  justify 
such  an  extraordinary  measure?  "Why  quit  our  own,  to  stand 
on  foreign  ground  ?"  Why  join  our  fortunes  in  any  case,  much 
less  in  a  useless  war  with  powers  of  another  origin — another 
tongue — another  faith?  Have  we  become  incompetent  to  our 
self-defence?  Are  we  in  need  of  foreign  "councils"  and  for- 
eign " deliberations "  to  manage  our  own  concerns?  Or  are  we 
so  moonstruck,  or  so  little  employed  at  home  as,  in  the  eloquent 
language  of  our  President  on  another  occasion — when  the  senti- 
ments expressed  found  a  response  in  every  patriot  heart — as  to 
wander  abroad  in  search  of  foreign  monsters  to  destroy  ?  Speak- 
ing of  America  and  her  foreign  policy,  he  observed,  "she  has 
abstained  from  interference  in  the  concerns  of  others  even  when 
the  conflict  has  been  for  principles  to  which  she  clings  as  to 
the  last  vital  drop  which  visits  the  heart. "  "Whenever  the 
standard  of  freedom  and  independence  has  been  or  shall  be 
unfurled,  there  will  her  heart,  her  benedictions,  and  her  prayers 
be.  But  she  goes  not  abroad  in  search  of  monsters  to  destroy. 
She  is  the  well-wisher  to  the  freedom  and  independence  of  all. 
She  is  the  champion  and  vindicator  only  of  her  own." — (Adams' 
Oration,  4th  July,  1821.)  This  is  the  first  time  that  the  legis- 
lative department  of  our  Government  has  ever  been  distinctly 
appealed  to  for  its  sanction  to  the  new  notions  thus  ably  de- 
nounced by  him;  and  if  we  now  approve  the  Panama  congress, 
whose  chief  object  is  to  enforce  them,  we  at  once  adopt  and 
approve  the  principle  that  Spain  has  not,  by  such  alliances  as 
national  law  warrants,  and  as  were  formed  on  both  sides  in  our 
own  Revolution,  any  right  to  attempt  to  reconquer  and  re- 
colonize  South  America ;  and,  further,  that  she  has  not,  by  such 
sales  as  national  law  warrants  and  as  we  ourselves  have  partaken, 
any  right  to  transfer  Cuba  or  Porto  Rico  to  any  European 
power  with  whom  she  can  agree  upon  the  purchase  money ;  and 
that  these  unprecedented  and  unjust  positions  we  are  willing 
to  maintain  at  any  sacrifice  of  blood  and  treasure. 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  243 

Senator  Johnston. — These  Spanish  American  states  have 
been  engaged  in  a  war  of  revolution.  They  have  achieved  their 
independence ;  all  the  force  of  Spain  has  been  driven  from  the 
continent.  But,  as  Spain  refuses  all  terms  with  them  and  may 
renew  the  war  upon  either  the  most  exposed  or  the  most  feeble ; 
as  she  will  concentrate  all  her  power  upon  a  given  point;  as 
the  occupation  of  any  position  on  the  continent  will  form  a 
basis  of  operations  on  which  to  act  against  all  the  rest ;  as  it  will 
become  the  rallying  point  of  all  her  adherents  and  enable  them 
to  prolong  the  war — it  became  necessary  to  unite  for  the  com- 
mon defence  of  all  and  mutually  to  guarantee  peace,  security, 
and  independence. 

In  such  a  compact  it  was  not  our  duty,  our  policy,  or  incli- 
nation to  engage;  and,  accordingly,  we  find  that  no  proposition 
was  made  to  us  to  become  a  party,  and  all  the  communications 
speak  with  the  most  guarded  precautions  and  the  most  explicit 
avowals.  To  believe  that  they  intended  to  unite  us  in  their 
councils  or  to  draw  us  into  their  measures  would  be  to  arrive 
at  this  conclusion  not  only  without  evidence  but  against  all  evi- 
dence and  in  the  face  of  the  most  solemn  assurances.  This  alli- 
ance of  Spanish  American  states  is  already  formed.  The  parties 
that  compose  it,  the  principles  on  which  it  is  based,  the  obliga- 
tions it  imposes,  and  the  means  to  be  employed  are  fully  set 
forth  in  the  convention  before  us;  to  which  I  confidently  refer. 

But  suppose  we  were  to  take  part  in  the  discussion  of  bellig- 
erent measures,  what  part  should  we  take?  It  is  our  interest 
and  our  duty  to  keep  Cuba  as  it  is :  a  movement  there  would  be 
dangerous  to  us.  The  Secretary  of  State  has  said  we  desire  to 
see  Cuba  remain  as  it  is.  The  President  has,  on  a  memorable 
occasion,  said:  "We  cannot  view  with  indifference  the  inter- 
position of  any  European  nation/ '  We  should,  therefore,  ad- 
vise them  to  husband  their  strength  and  resources — to  secure 
what  they  have  gained.  We  should  dissuade  them  from  striking 
at  that  island — a  measure,  perhaps,  fatal  to  them  and  injurious 
to  us. 

How,  then,  can  we  participate  in  any  belligerent  measure? 
or  any  act  prejudicial  to  Spain?  or  any  act  inconsistent  with 
our  faith,  our  honor,  or  our  neutrality? 

Mr.  President,  much  has  been  said  about  a  pledge.  It  is 
now  the  policy  to  make  an  impression  that  some  secret  under- 
standing has  taken  place ;  some  unknown  and  mysterious  ar- 
rangement, which  the  Government  will  now  be  bound  in  honor 
and  good  faith,  if  this  mission  is  sent,  to  carry  into  effect. 

The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  [Senator  Hayne]  inti- 


244  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

mates  strongly  that  this  Government  has  given  a  pledge.  The 
declaration  of  the  President  admonished  neutral  nations  not  to 
interfere  with  Spain  and  her  colonies.  It  was  a  distinct  and 
positive  enunciation  of  the  views  of  this  Government.  It  was 
supposed,  at  the  time,  to  mean  something.  By  some  it  has  been 
termed  a  protest ;  by  others  a  pledge ;  but  more  properly  desig- 
nated as  the  memorable  declaration.  No  other  or  different  as- 
surance has  been  given  to  strengthen  the  connections  with  these 
new  states.  But  admit  there  was:  all  motive  to  treat  on  that 
subject  now  has  ceased ;  there  is  now  no  danger,  or  even  expec- 
tation, that  the  contingency  will  ever  happen ;  and,  if  we  cannot 
rely  upon  the  assurance  of  the  President  that  no  alliance  will 
be  formed,  we  may  rely  upon  the  fact  that  no  pledge  has  been 
given,  by  the  inference  arising  from  the  fact  that  Mexico  re- 
fused to  place  us  on  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nations.  If 
we  had  given  the  pledge  to  protect  her  independence,  there 
would  have  existed  no  reason  for  the  distinction  taken  between 
us  and  the  other  American  states. 

Among  the  events  of  greatest  magnitude  and  most  anxious 
concern  to  this  country  is  the  future  condition  of  Cuba.  We 
know  that  Colombia  and  Mexico  have  long  contemplated  the 
independence  of  that  island.  It  has  probably  been  delayed  by 
want  of  concert  and  by  our  mediation  to  produce  peace.  But 
we  now  know  that  the  fortune  of  that  island  is  now  to  be 
settled.  They  have  waited  for  a  favorable  moment  to  attack 
them  with  a  certainty  of  success  by  the  greater  forces  which  the 
alliance  of  all  the  sections  of  the  South  and  Mexico  will  pro- 
cure. The  final  decision  is  now  to  be  made,  and  the  combina- 
tion of  forces  and  plan  of  attack  to  be  formed. 

With  regard  to  the  effect  of  that  mission  upon  us  there  is 
no  difference  of  opinion.  It  is  deprecated  by  all  as  equally 
dangerous  to  our  peace  and  their  safety.  What,  then,  at  such 
a  crisis  becomes  the  duty  of  this  Government  ?  Send  your  min- 
isters instantly  to  this  diplomatic  assembly  where  this  measure 
is  maturing.  Advise  with  them — remonstrate — menace  them,  if 
necessary,  against  a  step  so  dangerous  to  us  and  perhaps  fatal 
to  them.  Urge  them  to  be  satisfied  with  what  they  have  achieved 
— to  establish  their  governments — consolidate  their  union — im- 
prove their  resources.  Guard  them  against  the  madness  and 
folly  of  this  enterprise.  Warn  them  of  the  danger  of  provok- 
ing the  allies  to  take  part  with  Spain.  Admonish  them  of  their 
duty  and  obligation  they  owe  to  themselves,  to  us,  and  to  all 
Europe — not  to  disturb  the  peace  and  repose  of  the  world.  Our 
advice  will  be  respected  and  the  danger  averted. 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  245 

I  trust  I  have  shown  that,  if  this  mission  is  not  due  to  cour- 
tesy, it  is  due  to  a  just  estimate  of  our  essential  interests.  It  is 
due  to  friendship,  to  peace,  to  commerce,  to  our  principles;  it 
can  do  no  injury — it  may  do  good — it  will  do  good. 

It  was  in  connection  with  the  Panama  mission  that 
John  Randolph  made  his  celebrated  attack  on  the  Presi- 
dent and  Henry  Clay,  whom  Adams  had  appointed  Sec- 
retary of  State — as  the  result,  many  opponents  of  the 
Administration  claimed,  of  a  "corrupt  bargain' '  where- 
by Adams  had  won  the  presidency. 

On  March  30,  1826,  John  Branch  [N.  C]  introduced 
a  resolution  in  the  Senate  protesting  against  the  com- 
petency of  the  President  to  have  appointed  ministers  to 
the  congress  of  Panama  without  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate.  It  was  to  this  motion  that  Randolph 
spoke. 

Blifil  and  Black  Geobge 

Attack  on  Adams  and  Clay  by  John  Randolph 

Sir,  in  what  parliamentary  debate  was  it  that,  upon  a  cer- 
tain union  between  Lord  Sandwich,  one  of  the  most  corrupt  and 
profligate  of  men  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  and  the  sanctimo- 
nious, puritanical  Lord  Mansfield,  and  the  other  ministerial  lead- 
ers, that  Lord  Chatham  said  that  it  reminded  him  of  the  union 
between  Blifil  and  Black  George?  I,  who  am  no  professional 
man,  but  only  a  planter:  I,  whose  reading  has  not  gone  very 
deep  into  black  letter,  though  I  do  know  some  little  of  that,  too ; 
I  do  believe  there  is  more  wisdom,  after  the  Bible,  Shakespeare, 
and  Milton — I  do  believe  that  in  Don  Quixote,  Gil  Bias,  and 
Tom  Jones  there  is  contained  a  greater  body  of  wisdom  than  is 
to  be  found  in  the  same  number  of  pages  in  the  whole  collec- 
tion of  English  and  foreign  literature. 

I  will  prove,  if  the  Senate  will  have  the  patience  to  listen  to 
me — I  will  prove  to  their  satisfaction  that  the  President  has 
clapped  an  extinguisher  on  himself.  If  I  don't  prove  it,  I  will 
sit  down  infamous  and  contented  for  the  rest  of  my  life.  And 
how,  sir,  has  he  extinguished  himself?  He  has  done  it  by  the 
aid  and  instrumentality  of  this  very  new  ally.  I  shall  not  say 
which  is  Blifil  and  which  is  Black  George.  I  do  not  draw  my 
pictures  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  it  necessary  to  write  under 
them,  • '  this  is  a  man,  this  is  a  horse. ' '  I  say  this  new  ally  has 
been  the  means  of  extinguishing  him,  and  for  what?     Sir,  we 


246  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

hear  a  great  deal  about  the  infirmity  of  certain  constitutions — 
not  paper  constitutions — we  hear  a  great  deal  of  constitutional 
infirmity.  Seven  years  is  too  long  for  some  of  us  to  wait ;  and 
if  the  President  can  be  disposed  of  at  the  end  of  three  years, 
then,  being  extinguished,  may  they  not,  by  some  new  turning  up 
of  trumps,  expect  to  succeed  him?  Whatever  the  motive  may 
have  been,  the  fact  is  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  in  the  com- 
munications of  the  Executive  to  Congress;  and  I  will  state 
another  thing  when  I  come  to  it.  It  is  that  I  do  believe — though 
I  do  not  pledge  myself  to  prove — but  I  will  pledge  myself  to 
make  out  a  very  strong  case,  such  as  would  satisfy  a  jury  in 
the  county  of  Charlotte — and  I  would  put  myself  on  that  jury, 
and  be  tried  by  God  and  my  country — I  then  say,  sir,  that  there 
is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  these  South  American  communi- 
cations which  have  been  laid  before  us  were  manufactured  here 
at  Washington,  if  not  by  the  pens,  under  the  eye  of  our  own 
ministers,  to  subserve  their  purposes.  Sir,  though  in  one  re- 
spect I  am  like  the  great  Earl  of  Warwick,  the  king-maker,  and 
a  little  unlike  him  in  unmaking  one  king — though  between  two 
hawks  I  can  tell  which  flies  the  higher  pitch — between  two  dogs, 
which  has  the  deeper  mouth — between  two  horses,  which  bears 
him  best — between  two  blades,  which  hath  the  better  temper — 
between  two  girls,  which  hath  the  merrier  eye — yet,  in  matters 
of  law,  I  am  like  the  unlearned  Earl  Goodlack.  One  thing  has 
my  attention  been  turned  to — language — words — the  counters  of 
wise  men,  the  money  of  fools — that  machine  and  material  with 
which  the  lawyer,  the  priest,  the  doctor,  the  charlatan  of  every 
sort  and  kind  pick  the  pocket  and  put  the  fetters  upon  the 
planter  and  upon  the  slaveholder.  It  is  by  a  dexterous  cutting 
and  shuffling  of  this  pack  that  the  business  is  done.  They  who 
can  shuffle  the  whole  pack  are  often  quite  ignorant  of  any  for- 
eign language,  even  of  their  own,  and,  in  their  attempts  to  write 
and  talk  finely,  they  only  betray  their  poverty,  like  the  fine 
ladies  in  the  Vicar  of  Wakefield  by  their  outrageous  attempts  to 
be  very  genteel.  The  first  thing  that  struck  me  in  these  docu- 
ments was  how  wonderfully  these  Spaniards  must  have  improved 
in  English  in  their  short  residence  in  the  United  States.  It 
reminded  me  of  a  remark  in  one  of  Scott's  novels,  in  the  part 
about  old  Elspeth,  of  the  Craigburnfoot :  "Aye,"  says  old  Edie, 
"she's  ar  well  educate  woman;  and  an  she  win  to  her  English, 
as  I  hae  heard  her  do  at  an  orra  time,  she  may  come  to  fickle  us 
a\"  These  Spaniards  have  got  to  their  English,  and  we  are 
all  fickled.  But  I  shall  be  told — not  as  I  have  been  told — but 
as  I  am  prepared  to  be  told — because  I  have  kept  this  thing 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE  247 

locked  up  here  to  bring  it  out  here  in  this  Senate — I  shall  be 
told  that  these  English  letters  were  translations  from  the  Span- 
ish, made  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  I  hope  not — I 
should  be  sorry  to  see  any  such  tokens  of  affinity,  and  consan- 
guinity, and  good  understanding;  but  they  have  the  footprints 
and  the  flesh-marks  of  the  style  of  that  office. 

Now,  sir,  John  Quincy  Adams  coming  into  power  under  these 
inauspicious  circumstances,  and  with  these  suspicious  allies  and 
connections,  has  determined  to  become  the  apostle  of  liberty,  of 
universal  liberty,  as  his  father  was,  about  the  time  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  known  to  be  the  apostle  of  monarchy. 
It  is  no  secret — I  was  in  New  York  when  he  first  took  his  seat 
as  Vice-President.  I  recollect — for  I  was  a  schoolboy  at  the 
time,  attending  the  lobby  of  Congress  when  I  ought  to  have 
been  at  school — I  remember  the  manner  in  which  my  brother 
was  spurned  by  the  coachman  of  the  then  Vice-President  for 
coming  too  near  the  arms  blazoned  on  the  scutcheon  of  the  vice- 
regal carriage.  Perhaps  I  may  have  some  of  this  old  animosity 
rankling  in  my  heart,  and,  coming  from  a  race1  who  are  known 
never  to  forsake  a  friend  or  forgive  a  foe — I  am  taught  to  for- 
give my  enemies,  and  I  do  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  most 
sincerely,  as  I  hope  to  be  forgiven;  but  it  is  my  enemies — not 
the  enemies  of  my  country ;  for,  if  they  come  here  in  the  shape 
of  the  English,  it  is  my  duty  to  kill  them ;  if  they  come  here  in 
a  worse  shape — wolves  in  sheep's  clothing — it  is  my  duty  and 
my  business  to  tear  the  sheepskins  from  their  backs,  and,  as 
Windham  said  to  Pitt,  open  the  bosom  and  expose  beneath  the 
ruffled  shirt  the  filthy  dowlas.  Adams  determined  to  take  warn- 
ing by  his  father's  errors,  but  in  attempting  the  perpendicular 
he  bent  as  much  the  other  way.  Who  would  believe  that  Adams, 
the  son  of  the  sedition-law  President,  who  held  office  under  his 
father — who,  up  to  December  6,  1807,  was  the  undeviating, 
stanch  adherent  to  the  opposition  to  Jefferson's  administration, 
then  almost  gone — who  would  believe  he  had  selected  for  his 
pattern  the  celebrated  Anacharsis  Cloots,  "orator  of  the  human 
race"?  As  Anacharsis  was  the  orator  of  the  human  race,  so 
Adams  was  determined  to  be  the  President  of  the  human  race. 
He  has  come  out  with  a  speech  and  a  message,  and  with  a  doc- 
trine that  goes  to  take  the  whole  human  family  under  his  special 
protection.  Now,  sir,  who  made  him  his  brother 's  keeper  ?  Who 
gave  him,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  custody  of  the 
liberties,  or  the  rights,  or  the  interests  of  South  America,  or  any 
other  America,  save  only  the  United  States  of  America,  or  any 

1Eandolph  was  descended  from  Pocahontas, 


248  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

other  county  under  the  sun?  He  has  put  himself,  we  know, 
into  the  way,  and  I  say  God  send  him  a  safe  deliverance  and 
God  send  the  country  a  safe  deliverance  from  his  policy.  I 
quitted  the  Senate  ten  minutes  before  the  vote  was  taken.  After 
twenty-six  hours'  exertion  it  was  time  to  give  in.  I  was  de- 
feated, horse,  foot,  and  dragoons — cut  up — and  clean  broke 
down — by  the  coalition  of  Blifil  and  Black  George — by  the  com- 
bination, unheard  of  till  then,  of  the  puritan  with  the  black- 
leg. 

Secretary  Clay,  understanding  from  the  report  of 
the  speech  that  Randolph  had  charged  him  with  delib- 
erately forging  public  documents,  challenged  him  to  a 
duel,  which  Randolph  accepted.  Neither  contestant 
was  wounded  at  the  first  fire,  and  at  the  second  Ran- 
dolph discharged  his  pistol  in  the  air  and  had  the  skirt 
of  his  coat  ripped  by  Clay's  bullet.  Randolph  then 
stepped  up  to  Clay  and  saying,  "You  owe  me  a  coat,  Mr. 
Clay,"  he  extended  his  hand,  which  Clay  took,  saying 
"I  am  glad  the  debt  is  no  greater";  and  so  the  "high- 
toned"  duel,  as  Senator  Benton,  Randolph's  second, 
termed  it,  ended  in  good  feeling  between  the  duellists. 


CHAPTER   IX 

Sympathy  with  European  Revolutionists  [Greek] 

Resolution  of  Daniel  Webster  [Mass.]  in  Sympathy  with  Greek  Independence 
— Debate  on  the  Resolution:  in  Favor,  Daniel  Webster;  Opposed,  John 
Randolph  [Va.]. 

IN  the  same  message  in  which  he  announced  his  fa- 
mous Doctrine  (December,  1823)  President  Monroe 
made  the  revolution  in  Greece  the  subject  of  a 
paragraph,  and  on  the  8th  of  December  Daniel  Webster 
[Mass.]  moved  the  following  resolution  in  the  House 
of  Representatives: 

"Resolved,  That  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  for  de- 
fraying the  expense  incident  to  the  appointment  of  an  agent  or 
commissioner  to  Greece,  whenever  the  President  shall  deem  it 
expedient  to  make  such  appointment. ' ' 

The  resolution  was  brought  up  for  discussion  in  the 
House  on  January  19,  1824,  when  Mr.  Webster  spoke 
upon  it.  John  Randolph  [Va.]  replied  to  him  on  Janu- 
ary 24.  The  resolution  never  went  into  effect,  although 
its  expression,  the  first  official  utterance  favorable  to 
the  independence  of  Greece  uttered  by  any  of  the  gov- 
ernments of  Christendom,  no  doubt  contributed  toward 
the  creation  of  that  feeling  throughout  the  civilized 
world  which  eventually  led  to  the  battle  of  Navarino  and 
the  liberation  of  a  portion  of  Greece  from  the  Turkish 
yoke. 

Recognition  op  Greek  Independence 

House  of  Representatives,  January  19-24,  1824 

Mr.  Webster. — I  wish  to  take  occasion  of  the  struggle  of  an 
interesting  and  gallant  people,  in  the  cause  of  liberty  and  Chris- 
tianity, to  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  circumstances 

249 


250  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

which  have  accompanied  that  struggle,  and  to  the  principles 
which  appear  to  have  governed  the  conduct  of  the  great  states 
of  Europe  in  regard  to  it;  and  to  the  effects  and  consequences 
of  these  principles  upon  the  independence  of  nations,  and  espe- 
cially upon  the  institutions  of  free  governments.  What  I  have 
to  say  of  Greece,  therefore,  concerns  the  modern,  not  the  ancient ; 
the  living,  and  not  the  dead.  It  regards  her  not  as  she  exists 
in  history,  triumphant  over  time,  and  tyranny,  and  ignorance; 
but  as  she  now  is,  contending  against  fearful  odds  for  being 
and  for  the  common  privileges  of  human  nature. 

As  it  is  never  difficult  to  recite  commonplace  remarks  and 
trite  aphorisms,  so  it  may  be  easy,  I  am  aware,  on  this  occasion, 
to  remind  me  of  the  wisdom  which  dictates  to  men  a  care  of 
their  own  affairs,  and  admonishes  them,  instead  of  searching  for 
adventures  abroad,  to  leave  other  men's  concerns  in  their  own 
hands.  It  may  be  easy  to  call  this  resolution  quixotic,  the 
emanation  of  a  crusading  or  propagandist  spirit.  All  this,  and 
more,  may  be  readily  said;  but  all  this,  and  more,  will  not  be 
allowed  to  fix  a  character  upon  this  proceeding  until  that  is 
proved  which  it  takes  for  granted.  Let  it  first  be  shown  that 
in  this  question  there  is  nothing  which  can  affect  the  interest, 
the  character,  or  the  duty  of  this  country.  Let  it  be  proved 
that  we  are  not  called  upon,  by  either  of  these  considerations,  to 
express  an  opinion  on  the  subject  to  which  the  resolution  relates. 
But,  in  my  opinion,  this  cannot  be  shown.  In  my  judgment, 
the  subject  is  interesting  to  the  people  and  the  Government  of 
this  country,  and  we  are  called  upon,  by  considerations  of  great 
weight  and  moment,  to  express  our  opinions  upon  it.  These 
considerations,  I  think,  spring  from  a  sense  of  our  own  duty, 
our  character,  and  our  own  interest.  I  wish  to  treat  the  subject 
on  such  grounds,  exclusively,  as  arc  truly  American.  Let  it 
embrace  everything  that  fairly  concerns  America.  Let  it  com- 
prehend not  merely  her  present  advantage  but  her  permanent 
interest,  her  elevated  character  as  one  of  the  free  states  of  the 
world,  and  her  duty  toward  those  great  principles  which  have 
hitherto  maintained  the  relative  independence  of  nations,  and 
which  have,  more  especially,  made  her  what  she  is. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  session  the  President,  in  the 
discharge  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  called  our  attention  to 
the  subject  to  which  this  resolution  refers.  "A  strong  hope," 
says  that  communication,  "has  been  long  entertained,  founded 
on  the  heroic  struggle  of  the  Greeks,  that  they  would  succeed  in 
their  contest  and  resume  their  equal  station  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth,    It  is  believed  that  the  whole  civilized  world  takes 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  251 

a  deep  interest  in  their  welfare.  Although  no  power  has  de- 
clared in  their  favor,  yet  none,  according  to  our  information,  has 
taken  part  against  them.  Their  cause  and  their  name  have 
protected  them  from  dangers  which  might  ere  this  have  over- 
whelmed any  other  people.  The  ordinary  calculations  of  inter- 
est, and  of  acquisition  with  a  view  to  aggrandizement,  which 
mingle  so  much  in  the  transactions  of  nations,  seem  to  have 
had  no  effect  in  regard  to  them.  From  the  facts  which  have 
come  to  our  knowledge,  there  is  good  cause  to  believe  that  their 
enemy  has  lost  forever  all  dominion  over  them ;  that  Greece  will 
become  again  an  independent  nation. " 

If  the  sentiments  of  the  message  in  respect  to  Greece  be 
proper,  it  is  equally  proper  that  this  House  should  reciprocate 
those  sentiments.  The  present  resolution  is  designed  to  have 
that  extent,  and  no  more.  If  it  pass,  it  will  leave  any  future 
proceeding  where  it  now  is,  in  the  discretion  of  the  executive 
Government. 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  policy  of  this  country,  spring- 
ing from  the  nature  of  our  Government  and  the  spirit  of  all 
our  institutions,  is,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  interesting  questions 
which  agitate  the  present  age,  on  the  side  of  liberty  and  en- 
lightened sentiments.  We  are  placed,  by  our  good  fortune  and 
the  wisdom  and  valor  of  our  ancestors,  in  a  condition  in  which 
we  can  act  no  obscure  part.  Be  it  for  honor,  or  be  it  for  dis- 
honor, whatever  we  do  is  sure  to  attract  the  observation  of 
the  world.  As  one  of  the  free  states  among  the  nations,  as  a 
great  and  rapidly  rising  republic,  it  would  be  impossible  for  us, 
if  we  were  so  disposed,  to  prevent  our  principles,  our  sentiments, 
and  our  example  from  producing  some  effect  upon  the  opinions 
and  hopes  of  society  throughout  the  civilized  world.  It  rests 
probably  with  ourselves  to  determine  whether  the  influence  of 
these  shall  be  salutary  or  pernicious. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  great  political  question  of  this 
age  is  that  between  absolute  and  regulated  governments.  The 
substance  of  the  controversy  is  whether  society  shall  have  any 
part  in  its  own  government.  Whether  the  form  of  government 
shall  be  that  of  limited  monarchy,  with  more  or  less  mixture  of 
hereditary  power,  or  wholly  elective  or  representative,  may  per- 
haps be  considered  as  subordinate.  The  main  controversy  is 
between  that  absolute  rule  which,  while  it  promises  to  govern 
well,  means,  nevertheless,  to  govern  without  control,  and  that 
constitutional  system  which  restrains  sovereign  discretion  and 
asserts  that  society  may  claim  as  matter  of  right  some  effective 
power  in  the  establishment  of  the  laws  which  are  to  regulate 


252  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

it.  The  spirit  of  the  times  sets  with  a  most  powerful  current 
in  favor  of  these  last-mentioned  opinions.  It  is  opposed,  how- 
ever, whenever  and  wherever  it  shows  itself,  by  certain  of  the 
great  potentates  of  Europe;  and  it  is  opposed  on  grounds  as 
applicable  in  one  civilized  nation  as  in  another,  and  which 
would  justify  such  opposition  in  relation  to  the  United  States 
as  well  as  in  relation  to  any  other  state  or  nation  if  time  and 
circumstances  should  render  such  opposition  expedient. 

Our  place  is  on  the  side  of  free  institutions.  From  the 
earliest  settlement  of  these  States,  their  inhabitants  were  accus- 
tomed, in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  to  the  enjoyment  of  the 
powers  of  self-government;  and  for  the  last  half-century  they 
have  sustained  systems  of  government  entirely  representative, 
yielding  to  themselves  the  greatest  possible  prosperity,  and  not 
leaving  them  without  distinction  and  respect  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  This  system  we  are  not  likely  to  abandon;  and, 
while  we  shall  no  farther  recommend  its  adoption  to  other 
nations,  in  whole  or  in  part,  than  it  may  recommend  itself  by 
its  visible  influence  on  our  own  growth  and  prosperity,  we  are, 
nevertheless,  interested  to  resist  the  establishment  of  doctrines 
which  deny  the  legality  of  its  foundations.  We  stand  as  an 
equal  among  nations,  claiming  the  full  benefit  of  the  established 
international  law ;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  oppose,  from  the  earliest 
to  the  latest  moment,  any  innovations  upon  that  code  which 
shall  bring  into  doubt  or  question  our  own  equal  and  inde- 
pendent rights. 

,  I  have  a  most  deep  and  thorough  conviction  that  a  new  era 
has  arisen  in  the  world,  that  new  and  dangerous  combinations 
are  taking  place,  promulgating  doctrines  and  fraught  with  con- 
sequences wholly  subversive  in  their  tendency  of  the  public 
law  of  nations  and  of  the  general  liberties  of  mankind. 
Whether  this  be  so  or  not  is  the  question  which  I  now  propose 
to  examine,  upon  such  grounds  of  information  as  are  afforded 
by  the  common  and  public  means  of  knowledge. 

Here  Mr.  Webster  recited  the  history  of  the  "Holy 
Alliance.' p 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  a  writer  of  reputation  upon 
the  public  law  described,  many  years  ago,  not  inaccurately, 
the  character  of  this  alliance.  I  allude  to  Puffendorf.  "It 
seems  useless,' '  says  he,  "to  frame  any  pacts  or  leagues,  barely 
for  the  defence  and  support  of  universal  peace;  for  by  such  a 
nothing  is  superadded  to  the  obligation  of  natural  law, 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  253 

and  no  agreement  is  made  for  the  performance  of  anything 
which  the  parties  were  not  previously  bound  to  perform;  nor 
is  the  original  obligation  rendered  firmer  or  stronger  by  such  an 
addition. 

"If  one  engage  to  serve  another,  he  does  not  set  it  down 
expressly  and  particularly  among  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
the  bargain  that  he  will  not  betray  nor  murder  him,  nor  pillage 
nor  burn  his  house.  For  the  same  reason,  that  would  be  a 
dishonorable  engagement  in  which  men  should  bind  themselves 
to  act  properly  and  decently,  and  not  break  the  peace."1 

How  nearly  Puffendorf  had  anticipated  the  case  of  the  Holy 
Alliance  will  appear  from  the  preamble  to  that  alliance.  After 
stating  that  the  allied  sovereigns  had  become  persuaded,  by  the 
events  of  the  last  three  years,  that  "their  relations  with  each 
other  ought  to  be  regulated  exclusively  by  the  sublime  truths 
taught  by  the  eternal  religion  of  God  the  Savior,' '  they  solemnly 
declare  their  fixed  resolution  "to  adopt  as  the  sole  rule  of  their 
conduct,  both  in  the  administration  of  their  respective  states 
and  in  their  political  relations  with  every  other  government, 
the  precepts  of  that  holy  religion,  namely,  the  precepts  of  jus- 
tice, charity,  and  peace,  which,  far  from  being  applicable  to 
private  life  alone,  ought,  on  the  contrary,  to  have  a  direct  influ- 
ence upon  the  counsels  of  princes,  and  guide  all  their  steps,  as 
being  the  only  means  of  consolidating  human  institutions  and 
remedying  their  imperfections." 

This  measure,  however,  appears  principally  important  as  it 
was  the  first  of  a  series,  and  was  followed  afterward  by  others 
of  a  more  marked  and  practical  nature.  These  measures,  taken 
together,  profess  to  establish  two  principles  which  the  Allied 
Powers  would  introduce  as  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  civilized 
world;  and  the  establishment  of  which  is  to  be  enforced  by  a 
million  and  a  half  of  bayonets. 

The  first  of  these  principles  is  that  all  popular  or  constitu- 
tional rights  are  held  no  otherwise  than  as  grants  from  the 
crown.  Society,  upon  this  principle,  has  no  rights  of  its  own; 
it  takes  good  government,  when  it  gets  it,  as  a  boon  and  a  con- 
cession, but  can  demand  nothing.  It  is  to  live  by  that  favor 
which  emanates  from  royal  authority,  and,  if  it  have  the  mis- 
fortune to  lose  that  favor,  there  is  nothing  to  protect  it  against 
any  degree  of  injustice  and  oppression.  It  can  rightfully  make 
no  endeavor  for  a  change,  by  itself;  its  whole  privilege  is  to 
receive  the  favors  that  may  be  dispensed  by  the  sovereign 
power,  and  all  its  duty  is  described  in  the  single  word  submis- 

1  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,  Book  II.,  Chap.  2,  Sec.  11. 


254  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

sion.  This  is  the  plain  result  of  the  principal  Continental  state 
papers;  indeed,  it  is  nearly  the  identical  text  of  some  of  them. 

I  need  not  stop  to  observe,  Mr.  Chairman,  how  totally  hos- 
tile are  these  doctrines  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our 
Government.  They  are  in  direct  contradiction;  the  principles 
of  good  and  evil  are  hardly  more  opposite.  If  these  principles 
of  the  sovereigns  be  true,  we  are  but  in  a  state  of  rebellion  or 
of  anarchy,  and  are  only  tolerated  among  civilized  states  be- 
cause it  has  not  yet  been  convenient  to  reduce  us  to  the  true 
standard. 

But  the  second,  and,  if  possible,  the  still  more  objectionable, 
principle  avowed  in  these  papers  is  the  right  of  forcible  inter- 
ference in  the  affairs  of  other  states.  A  right  to  control  nations 
in  their  desire  to  change  their  own  government,  wherever  it  may 
be  conjectured  or  pretended  that  such  change  might  furnish  an 
example  to  the  subjects  of  other  states,  is  plainly  and  distinctly 
asserted. 

No  matter  what  be  the  character  of  the  government  resisted, 
no  matter  with  what  weight  the  foot  of  the  oppressor  bears  on 
the  neck  of  the  oppressed,  if  he  struggle  or  if  he  complain  he 
sets  a  dangerous  example  of  resistance — and  from  that  moment 
he  becomes  an  object  of  hostility  to  the  most  powerful  poten- 
tates of  the  earth.  I  want  words  to  express  my  abhorrence  of 
this  abominable  principle.  I  trust  every  enlightened  man 
throughout  the  world  will  oppose  it,  and  that,  especially,  those 
who,  like  ourselves,  are  fortunately  out  of  the  reach  of  the  bayo- 
nets that  enforce  it  will  proclaim  their  detestation  of  it  in  a 
tone  both  loud  and  decisive.  What  is  to  be  the  limit  to  such  a 
principle,  or  to  the  practice  growing  out  of  it?  What,  in  any 
case  but  sovereign  pleasure,  is  to  decide  whether  the  example  be 
good  or  bad?  And  what,  under  the  operation  of  such  a  rule, 
may  be  thought  of  our  example?  Why  are  we  not  as  fair  objects 
for  the  operation  of  the  new  principle  as  any  of  those  who  may 
attempt  a  reform  of  government  on  the  other  side  of  the  At- 
lantic ? 

M.  de  Chateaubriand,  in  his  speech  in  the  French  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  in  February  last,  declared  that  he  had  a  conference 
with  the  Emperor  of  Russia  at  Verona,  in  which  that  august 
sovereign  uttered  sentiments  which  appeared  to  him  so  precious 
that  he  immediately  hastened  home  and  wrote  them  down  while 
yet  fresh  in  his  recollection.  '  *  The  Emperor  declared, ' '  said  he, 
1  'that  there  can  no  longer  be  such  a  thing  as  an  English,  French, 
Russian,  Prussian,  or  Austrian  policy;  there  is  henceforth  but 
one  policy,  which,  for  the  safety  of  all,  should  be  adopted  both 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  255 

by  people  and  kings.  It  was  for  me  first  to  show  myself  con- 
vinced of  the  principles  upon  which  I  founded  the  alliance;  an 
occasion  offered  itself — the  rising  in  Greece.  Nothing  certainly 
could  occur  more  for  my  interests,  for  the  interests  of  my  people ; 
nothing  more  acceptable  to  my  country,  than  a  religious  war  in 
Turkey.  But  I  have  thought  I  perceived  in  the  troubles  of  the 
Morea  the  sign  of  revolution,  and  I  have  held  back.  Providence 
has  not  put  under  my  command  eight  hundred  thousand  sol- 
diers to  satisfy  my  ambition,  but  to  protect  religion,  morality, 
and  justice,  and  to  secure  the  prevalence  of  those  principles 
of  order  on  which  human  society  rests.  It  may  well  be  per- 
mitted that  kings  may  have  public  alliances  to  defend  them- 
selves against  secret  enemies.,, 

If  it  be  true  that  there  is  hereafter  to  be  neither  a  Russian 
policy,  nor  a  Prussian  policy,  nor  an  Austrian  policy,  nor  a 
French  policy,  nor  even,  which  yet  I  will  not  believe,  an  Eng- 
lish policy,  there  will  be,  I  trust  in  God,  an  American  policy. 
If  the  authority  of  all  these  governments  be  hereafter  to  be 
mixed  and  blended,  and  to  flow,  in  one  augmented  current  of 
prerogative,  over  the  face  of  Europe,  sweeping  away  all  resist- 
ance in  its  course,  it  will  yet  remain  for  us  to  secure  our  own 
happiness  by  the  preservation  of  our  own  principles;  which  I 
hope  we  shall  have  the  manliness  to  express  on  all  proper  occa- 
sions, and  the  spirit  to  defend  in  every  extremity.  Human  lib- 
erty may  yet,  perhaps,  be  obliged  to  repose  its  principal  hopes 
on  the  intelligence  and  the  vigor  of  the  Saxon  race. 

This  asserted  right  of  forcible  intervention  in  the  affairs  of 
other  nations  is  in  open  violation  of  the  public  law  of  the  world. 
On  the  basis  of  the  independence  of  nations  has  been  reared 
the  beautiful  fabric  of  international  law.  On  this  principle  the 
great  commonwealth  of  civilized  states  has  been  hitherto  upheld. 
There  have  been  occasional  departures  or  violations,  and  always 
disastrous,  as  in  the  case  of  Poland;  but,  in  general,  the  har- 
mony of  the  system  has  been  wonderfully  preserved.  In  the 
production  and  preservation  of  this  sense  of  justice,  this  pre- 
dominating principle,  the  Christian  religion  has  acted  a  main 
part.  Christianity  and  civilization  have  labored  together;  it 
seems,  indeed,  to  be  a  law  of  our  human  condition  that  they  can 
live  and  flourish  only  together. 

It  may  now  be  required  of  me  to  show  what  interest  we  have 
in  resisting  this  new  system.  The  thunder,  it  may  be  said,  rolls 
at  a  distance.  The  wide  Atlantic  is  between  us  and  danger; 
and,  however  others  may  suffer,  we  shall  remain  safe. 

I  think  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  to  say  that  we  are  one 


256  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

of  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  that  we  have  an  interest,  therefore, 
in  the  preservation  of  that  system  of  national  law  and  national 
intercourse  which  has  heretofore  subsisted  so  beneficially  for  all. 
Our  system  of  government,  it  should  also  be  remembered,  is, 
throughout,  founded  on  principles  utterly  hostile  to  the  new 
code;  and,  if  we  remain  undisturbed  by  its  operation,  we  shall 
owe  our  security  either  to  our  situation  or  our  spirit.  The  en- 
terprising character  of  the  age,  our  own  active,  commercial 
spirit,  the  great  increase  which  has  taken  place  in  the  inter- 
course among  civilized  and  commercial  states,  have  necessarily 
connected  us  with  other  nations,  and  given  us  a  high  concern  in 
the  preservation  of  those  salutary  principles  upon  which  that 
intercourse  is  founded.  "We  have  as  clear  an  interest  in  inter- 
national law  as  individuals  have  in  the  laws  of  society. 

But  apart  from  the  soundness  of  the  policy,  on  the  ground 
of  direct  interest,  we  have,  sir,  a  duty  connected  with  this 
subject  which  I  trust  we  are  willing  to  perform.  What  do  we 
not  owe  to  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty?  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  lawful  resistance?  to  the  principle  that  society  has  a 
right  to  partake  in  its  own  government?  As  the  leading  re- 
public of  the  world,  living  and  breathing  in  these  principles,  and 
advanced  by  their  operation  with  unequaled  rapidity  in  our 
career,  shall  we  give  our  consent  to  bring  them  into  disrepute 
and  disgrace?  It  is  neither  ostentation  nor  boasting  to  say 
that  there  lies  before  this  country,  in  immediate  prospect,  a  great 
extent  and  height  of  power.  We  are  borne  along  toward  this 
without  effort  and  not  always  even  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the 
rapidity  of  our  own  motion.  Circumstances  which  never  com- 
bined before  have  cooperated  in  our  favor,  and  a  mighty  cur- 
rent is  setting  us  forward  which  we  could  not  resist  even  if  we 
would,  and  which,  while  we  would  stop  to  make  an  observation, 
and  take  the  sun,  has  set  us,  at  the  end  of  the  operation,  far  in 
advance  of  the  place  where  we  commenced  it.  Does  it  not  be- 
come us,  then,  is  it  not  a  duty  imposed  on  us,  to  give  our  weight 
to  the  side  of  liberty  and  justice,  to  let  mankind  know  that  we 
are  not  tired  of  our  own  institutions,  and  to  protest  against  the 
asserted  power  of  altering  at  pleasure  the  law  of  the  civilized 
world  ? 

It  may,  in  the  next  place,  be  asked,  perhaps,  Supposing  all 
this  to  be  true,  what  can  we  do?  Are  we  to  go  to  war,  Are 
we  to  interfere  in  the  Greek  cause,  or  any  other  European 
cause  ?  Are  we  to  endanger  our  pacific  relations  ?  No,  certainly 
not.     What,  then,  the  question  recurs,  remains  for  us? 

Sir,  this  reasoning  mistakes  the  age.    The  time  has  been,  in- 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  257 

deed,  when  fleets  and  armies  and  subsidies  were  the  principal 
reliances  even  in  the  best  cause.  But,  happily  for  mankind,  a 
great  change  has  taken  place  in  this  respect.  Moral  causes 
come  into  consideration,  in  proportion  as  the  progress  of  knowl- 
edge is  advanced;  and  the  public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world 
is  rapidly  gaining  an  ascendency  over  mere. brutal  force.  It  is 
already  able  to  oppose  the  most  formidable  obstruction  to  the 
progress  of  injustice  and  oppression;  and  as  it  grows  more  in- 
telligent and  more  intense,  it  will  be  more  and  more  formidable. 
It  may  be  silenced  by  military  power,  but  it  cannot  be  con- 
quered. It  is  elastic,  irrepressible,  and  invulnerable  to  the  weap- 
ons of  ordinary  warfare.  It  is  that  impassible,  unextinguish- 
able  enemy  of  mere  violence  and  arbitrary  rule,  which,  like 
Milton's  angels, 

"  Vital  in  every  part,     .     .     . 
Cannot,  but  by  annihilating,  die." 

Until  this  be  propitiated  or  satisfied,  it  is  vain  for  power  to 
talk  either  of  triumphs  or  of  repose.  No  matter  what  fields  are 
desolated,  what  fortresses  surrendered,  what  armies  subdued,  or 
what  provinces  overrun.  In  the  history  of  the  year  that  has 
passed  by  us,  and  in  the  instance  of  unhappy  Spain,  we  have 
seen  the  vanity  of  all  triumphs  in  a  cause  which  violates  the 
general  sense  of  justice  of  the  civilized  world.  It  is  nothing 
that  the  troops  of  France  have  passed  from  the  Pyrenees  to 
Cadiz ;  it  is  nothing  that  an  unhappy  and  prostrate  nation  has 
fallen  before  them;  it  is  nothing  that  arrests  and  confiscation 
and  execution  sweep  away  the  little  remnant  of  national  resist- 
ance. There  is  an  enemy  that  still  exists  to  check  the  glory  of 
these  triumphs.  It  follows  the  conqueror  back  to  the  very  scene 
of  his  ovations;  it  calls  upon  him  to  take  notice  that  Europe, 
though  silent,  is  yet  indignant ;  it  shows  him  that  the  scepter  of 
his  victory  is  a  barren  scepter;  that  it  shall  confer  neither  joy 
nor  honor,  but  shall  molder  to  dry  ashes  in  his  grasp.  In  the 
midst  of  his  exultation,  it  pierces  his  ear  with  the  cry  of  injured 
justice;  it  denounces  against  him  the  indignation  of  an  en- 
lightened and  civilized  age;  it  turns  to  bitterness  the  cup  of 
his  rejoicing,  and  wounds  him  with  the  sting  which  belongs 
to  the  consciousness  of  having  outraged  the  opinion  of  mankind. 

Sir,  what  has  been  the  conduct  pursued  by  the  Allied  Powers 
in  regard  to  the  contest  in  Greece?  When  the  revolution  broke 
out  the  sovereigns  were  assembled  in  congress  at  Laybach;  and 
the  papers  of  that  assembly  sufficiently  manifest  their  senti- 
ments.    They  proclaimed  their  abhorrence  of  those  "  criminal 


258  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

combinations  which  had  been  formed  in  the  eastern  parts  of 
Europe/'  Now  it  must  be  remembered  that  Russia  was  a 
leading  party  in  this  denunciation,  yet  it  is  notorious  that 
within  the  last  half -century  she  has  again  and  again  excited  the 
Greeks  to  rebellion  against  the  Porte,  and  that  she  has  con- 
stantly kept  alive  in  them  the  hope  that  she  would  one  day,  by 
her  own  great  power,  break  the  yoke  of  their  oppressor.  The 
Grecian  revolution  has  been  discouraged,  discountenanced,  and 
denounced,  solely  because  it  is  a  revolution. 

Now  it  is  upon  this  practical  result  of  the  principle  of  the 
Continental  powers  that  I  wish  this  House  to  intimate  its  opin- 
ion. The  great  question  is  a  question  of  principle.  Greece  is 
only  the  signal  instance  of  the  application  of  that  principle. 
If  the  principle  be  right,  if  we  esteem  it  comformable  to  the  law 
of  nations,  if  we  have  nothing  to  say  against  it,  or  if  we  deem 
ourselves  unfit  to  express  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  then,  of 
course,  no  resolution  ought  to  pass.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
see  in  the  declarations  of  the  Allied  Powers  principles  not  only 
utterly  hostile  to  our  own  free  institutions,  but  hostile  also  to 
the  independence  of  all  nations,  and  altogether  opposed  to  the 
improvement  of  the  condition  of  human  nature;  if,  in  the  in- 
stance before  us,  we  see  a  most  striking  exposition  and  applica- 
tion of  those  principles,  and  if  we  deem  our  opinions  to  be 
entitled  to  any  weight  in  the  estimation  of  mankind — then  I 
think  it  is  our  duty  to  adopt  some  such  measure  as  the  proposed 
resolution. 

I  close,  sir,  with  repeating  that  the  object  of  this  resolution 
is  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  interesting  occasion  of  the  Greek 
revolution  to  make  our  protest  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Allied 
Powers,  both  as  they  are  laid  down  in  principle  and  as  they  are 
applied  in  practice.  I  think  it  right,  too,  sir,  not  to  be  unsea- 
sonable in  the  expression  of  our  regard  and,  as  far  as  that  goes, 
in  a  manifestation  of  our  sympathy  with  a  long  oppressed  and 
now  struggling  people.  I  am  not  of  those  who  would,  in  the 
hour  of  utmost  peril,  withhold  such  encouragement  as  might  be 
properly  and  lawfully  given,  and,  when  the  crisis  should  be 
past,  overwhelm  the  rescued  sufferer  with  kindness  and  caresses. 
The  Greeks  address  the  civilized  world  with  a  pathos  not  easy 
to  be  resisted.  They  invoke  our  favor  by  more  moving  consider- 
ations than  can  well  belong  to  the  condition  of  any  other  people. 
They  stretch  out  their  arms  to  the  Christian  communities  of 
the  earth,  beseeching  them,  by  a  generous  recollection  of  their 
ancestors,  by  the  consideration  of  their  desolated  and  ruined 
cities  and  villages,  by  their  wives  and  children  sold  into  an 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  259 

accursed  slavery,  by  their  blood,  which  they  seem  willing  to 
pour  out  like  water,  by  the  common  faith,  and  in  the  name  which 
unites  all  Christians,  that  they  would  extend  to  them  at  least 
some  token  of  compassionate  regard. 

Mr.  Randolph. — It  is  with  serious  concern  and  alarm  that  I 
have  heard  doctrines  broached  in  this  debate  fraught  with  con- 
sequences more  disastrous  to  the  best  interests  of  this  people 
than  any  that  I  ever  heard  advanced  during  the  five  and  twenty 
years  since  I  have  been  honored  with  a  seat  on  this  floor.  They 
imply,  to  my  apprehension,  a  total  and  fundamental  change  of 
the  policy  pursued  by  this  Government,  db  urbe  condita — from 
the  foundation  of  the  Republic  to  the  present  day.  Are  we,  sir, 
to  go  on  a  crusade,  in  another  hemisphere,  for  the  propagation 
of  two  objects  as  dear  and  delightful  to  my  heart  as  to  that 
of  any  gentleman  in  this  or  in  any  other  assembly — Liberty  and 
Religion — and  in  the  name  of  those  holy  words — by  this  power- 
ful spell,  is  this  nation  to  be  conjured  and  beguiled  out  of  the 
highway  of  Heaven — out  of  its  present  comparatively  happy 
state,  into  all  the  disastrous  conflicts  arising  from  the  policy  of 
European  powers,  with  all  the  consequences  which  flow  from 
them  ?  Liberty  and  Religion,  sir ! — things  that  are  yet  dear,  in 
spite  of  all  the  mischief  that  has  been  perpetrated  in  their 
name.  I  believe  that  nothing  similar  to  this  proposition  is  to 
be  found  in  modern  history,  unless  in  the  famous  decree  of  the 
French  National  Assembly,  which  brought  combined  Europe 
against  them,  with  its  united  strength,  and,  after  repeated 
struggles,  finally  effected  the  downfall  of  the  French  power. 
Sir,  I  am  wrong — there  is  another  example  of  like  doctrine; 
and  you  find  it  among  that  strange  and  peculiar  people — in  that 
mysterious  book,  which  is  of  the  highest  authority  with  them 
(for  it  is  at  once  their  gospel  and  their  law),  the  Koran,  which 
enjoins  it  to  be  the  duty  of  all  good  Moslems  to  propagate  its 
doctrines  at  the  point  of  the  sword ;  by  the  edge  of  the  scimitar. 
Sir,  these  Moslems  were  encamped,  where  we  now  find  them, 
before  this  country  was  discovered,  and  their  title  to  the  coun- 
try which  they  occupy  is  at  least  as  good  as  ours.  They  hold 
their  possessions  there  by  the  same  title  by  which  all  other  coun- 
tries are  held — possession  obtained  at  first  by  a  successful  em- 
ployment of  force,  confirmed  by  time,  by  usage,  by  prescription 
— the  best  of  all  possible  titles.  Their  policy  has  been,  not 
tortuous,  like  that  of  other  states  of  Europe,  but  straightfor- 
ward; they  have  invariably  appealed  to  the  sword,  and  have 
held  by  the  sword.  And,  in  consequence  of  this  straightfor- 
ward policy,  this  peculiar  people  could  boast  of  being  the  only 


260  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

one  of  all  the  powers  of  continental  Europe  whose  capital 
had  never  been  insulted  by  the  presence  of  a  foreign  military 
force. 

I  would  respectfully  ask  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
whether  in  his  very  able  and  masterly  argument  he  himself  has 
not  furnished  an  answer  to  his  speech?  The  gentleman  lays 
down,  from  Puffendorf,  in  reference  to  the  honeyed  words  and 
pious  professions  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  that  these  are  all  sur- 
plusage, because  nations  are  always  supposed  to  be  ready  to  do 
what  justice  and  national  law  require.  Well,  sir,  if  this  be  so, 
why  may  not  the  Greek  presume — why  are  they  not,  on  this 
principle,  bound  to  presume  that  this  Government  is  disposed 
to  do  all,  in  reference  to  them,  that  they  ought  to  do,  without 
any  formal  resolutions  to  that  effect  ?  I  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  whether  the  doctrine  of  Puffendorf  does  not 
apply  as  strongly  to  the  resolution  as  to  the  declaration  of  the 
Allies — that  is,  if  there  be  not  something  behind  this  nothing 
which  divides  this  House  into  two  unequal  parts,  one  the  advo- 
cate of  a  splendid  system  of  crusades,  the  other  the  friends  of 
peace  and  harmony,  the  advocates  of  a  fireside  policy;  for,  as 
has  truly  been  said,  as  long  as  all  is  right  at  the  fireside,  there 
cannot  be  much  wrong  elsewhere? 

But,  sir,  we  have  already  done  more  than  this.  The  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  the  only  organ  of  communication 
which  the  people  have  seen  fit  to  establish  between  us  and  for- 
eign powers,  has  already  expressed  all,  in  reference  to  Greece, 
that  the  resolution  goes  to  express.  Actum  est — it  is  done — it 
is  finished — there  is  an  end. 

If  the  great  master  of  the  political  philosophy  could  arise 
from  the  dead,  or  had  his  valuable  life  been  spared  till  now,  he 
would  not  only  have  been  relieved  from  all  his  terrors  on  the 
subject  of  a  regicide  peace,  but  also  have  witnessed  a  return  of 
the  age  of  chivalry  and  the  banishment  of  calculation  even 
from  the  estimates  of  statesmen  which  that  great  man  could 
never  have  foreseen;  for  the  proposition  now  under  consider- 
ation is  that  something  new  under  the  sun  which  Solomon  him- 
self never  dreamed  of.  Is  this  all?  No,  sir;  if  that  was  all  I 
should  not  have  thrown  myself  upon  your  attention.  But  this 
is  not  all.  Cases  have  already  been  stated,  to  which  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  resolution  equally  applies  as  to  that  of  the  Greeks. 
In  addition  to  those  already  put,  I  will  take  the  case  of  Canada, 
if  you  will.  It  is  known  to  everybody  that  discontents  have  for 
some  time  existed  in  the  Canadian  Provinces  with  the  mother 
country  and  the  measures  of  its  government.     Suppose  the  peo- 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  261 

pie  of  the  British  colonies  to  the  north  of  us  undertake  to  throw 
off  the  yoke — I  will  not  put  the  ease  of  Jamaica,  because  they, 
unhappily,  are  slaveholders.  Are  you  ready  to  stake  the  peace 
and  welfare  and  the  resources  of  this  nation  in  support  of  Ca- 
nadian independence  ?  Your  doctrine  goes  that  length — you  can- 
not stop  short  of  it.  Where,  in  that  case,  will  be  the  assistance 
of  Great  Britain,  already  referred  to  in  debate  as  being  the 
only  spot  in  the  world  in  which  liberty  resides  except  our 
own  country?  There  is  another  people — in  valorous  achieve- 
ments and  daring  spirit  on  a  footing  with  these  Greeks 
themselves — who  have  achieved  their  independence  from  a  bond- 
age far  heavier  than  that  of  the  Greeks  to  the  Turks.  How  is  it, 
sir,  that  we  have  never  sent  an  envoy  to  our  sister  republic  of 
Hayti?  Here  is  a  case  that  fits — a  case  beyond  dispute.  It  is 
not  that  of  a  people  who  have  " almost' '  (aye,  sir!  almost,  but 
not  altogether) — who  have  almost  but  perfectly  achieved  their 
independence.  To  attempt  to  show  that  these  cases  are  equally 
within  the  range  of  the  principle  of  the  resolution  would  be  to 
show  a  disrespect  to  the  intellects  of  those  around  me.  The 
man  who  cannot  pursue  the  inference  would  not  recognize  my 
picture,  though,  like  the  Dutchman's  painting,  were  written 
under  it,  "This  is  the  man,  that  the  horse." 

Among  other  cases  forcibly  put  by  the  gentleman  from  Mas- 
sachusetts, why  he  would  embark  in  this  incipient  crusade 
against  Mussulmen,  he  stated  this  as  one — that  they  hold  human 
beings  as  property.  Ah,  sir,  and  what  says  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  on  this  point?  Unless,  indeed,  that  instru- 
ment is  wholly  to  be  excluded  from  consideration — unless  it  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  useless  parchment,  worthy  to  be 
burned,  as  was  once  actually  proposed.  Does  not  that  Consti- 
tution give  its  sanction  to  the  holding  of  human  beings  as  prop- 
erty? Sir,  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  the  abstract  question  of 
liberty  or  slavery,  or  any  other  abstract  question.  I  go  for  mat- 
ters of  fact.  But  I  would  ask  gentlemen  in  this  House  who 
have  the  misfortune  to  reside  on  the  wrong  side  of  a  certain 
mysterious  parallel  of  latitude  to  take  this  question  seriously 
into  consideration — whether  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  prepared  to  say  that  the  act  of  holding  human  beings 
as  property  is  sufficient  to  place  the  party  so  offending  under 
the  ban  of  its  high  and  mighty  displeasure? 

Sir,  the  objections  to  this  resolution  accumulate  as  I  pro- 
ceed— vires  acquirit  eundo.1  If  I  should  attempt  to  go  through 
with  a  statement  of  them  all,  and  had  strength  to  sustain  me,  I 
1 ' '  It  gathers  powers  in  its  going. ' ' 


262  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

should  do  what  I  promised  I  would  not  do — I  should  worry  and 
exhaust  the  patience  of  this  committee. 

Sir,  what  are  we  now  asked  to  do  ?  To  stimulate  the  Execu- 
tive to  the  creation  of  embassies.  And  what  then?  That  we, 
or  our  friends,  may  fill  them.  Sir,  the  sending  ambassadors 
abroad  is  one  of  the  great  prerogatives,  if  you  will,  of  our  Execu- 
tive authority;  and  we  are,  I  repeat,  about  to  stimulate  the 
President  to  the  creation  of  a  new,  and,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say,  an  unnecessary,  embassy — a  diplomatic  agency  to  Greece — 
that  we,  or  our  friends,  may  profit  by  it.  For,  sir,  it  is  a  matter 
of  notoriety  that  all  these  good  things  are  reserved  for  men  who 
either  have  been  or  are  de  facto  members  of  this  or  of  the  other 
House.  No  doubt  we  shall  be  able  to  find  some  learned  Theban, 
or  some  other  Boeotian,  willing  to  undertake  this  mission — per- 
fectly willing  to  live  upon  the  resources  of  the  people  rather 
than  his  own.  But  then  recurs  the  old-fashioned  question,  Gui 
bono?    His  own,  undoubtedly,  but  surely  not  that  of  this  nation. 

But  it  is  urged  that  we  have  sent  and  received  ministers 
from  revolutionary  France.  True,  we  have ;  but  what  was  revo- 
lutionary France?  Our  own  ancient  and  very  good  ally;  a  sub- 
stantive power,  if  any  such  exist  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
whose  independent  existence  no  one  could  doubt  or  dispute, 
unless,  indeed,  the  disciples  of  Berkeley,  who  deny  that  there 
is  any  such  thing  as  matter.  Sir,  let  these  Greeks  send  a 
minister  to  us,  and  then  we  will  deliberate  on  the  question 
whether  we  will  accredit  him  or  not.  If,  indeed,  there  was  a 
minister  of  Greece  knocking  at  the  door  of  the  President 's  ante- 
chamber for  admittance,  and  that  admittance  was  denied,  the 
question  of  Grecian  independence  would  be  more  legitimately 
before  us;  but  I  greatly  doubt  if  even  that  case  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  call  for  the  interference  of  this  House. 

But  there  is  one  aspect  of  this  question  which  ought  to  be 
conclusive  on  the  minds  of  all,  viz:  That  Russia,  whose  designs 
on  Turkey  have  been  unremittingly  prosecuted  ever  since  the 
days  of  Peter  the  Great  for  more  than  a  century;  that  Russia, 
allied  to  the  Greeks  in  religious  faith — identified  in  that  re- 
spect; that  Russia,  unassailable  territorially,  and  dividing  with 
us  (according  to  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts)  the  dread 
and  apprehension  of  the  Allied  Powers — even  Russia,  in  "juxta- 
position" (to  use  the  words  of  the  mover  of  the  resolution)  to 
Turkey — even  Russia  dare  not  move.  But  we,  who  are  sepa- 
rated first  by  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  then  have  to  traverse  the 
Mediterranean  Sea  to  arrive  at  the  seat  of  conflict — we,  at  the 
distance  of  five  thousand  miles,  are  to  interfere  in  this  quarrel 


THE    GREEK    REVOLUTION  263 

— to  what  purpose?  To  the  advantage  solely  of  this  very  colossal 
power  which  has  been  held  up  as  the  great  object  of  our  dread, 
and  of  whom  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  it  is  more  to  be 
dreaded  for  its  physical  force  or  its  detestable  principle. 

Permit  me,  sir,  to  ask  why,  in  the  selection  of  an  enemy  to 
the  doctrines  of  our  Government,  and  a  party  to  those  advanced 
by  the  Holy  Alliance,  we  should  fix  on  Turkey?  She,  at  least, 
forms  no  party  to  that  alliance;  and  I  venture  to  say  that,  for 
the  last  century,  her  conduct,  in  reference  to  her  neighbors, 
has  been  much  more  Christian  than  that  of  all  the  * '  Most  Chris- 
tian," "Most  Catholic,''  or  "Most  Faithful"  Majesties  of  Eu- 
rope— for  she  has  not  interfered,  as  we  propose  to  do,  in  the 
internal  affairs  of  other  nations. 

But,  sir,  we  have  not  done.  Not  satisfied  with  attempting  to 
support  the  Greeks,  one  world,  like  that  of  Pyrrhus  or  Alex- 
ander, is  not  sufficient  for  us.  We  have  yet  another  world  for 
exploits:  we  are  to  operate  in  a  country  distant  from  us  eighty 
degrees  of  latitude,  and  only  accessible  by  a  circumnavigation  of 
the  globe,  and  to  subdue  which  we  must  cover  the  Pacific  with 
our  ships,  and  the  tops  of  the  Andes  with  our  soldiers.  Do  gen- 
tlemen seriously  reflect  on  the  work  they  have  cut  out  for  us? 
Why,  sir,  these  projects  of  ambition  surpass  those  of  Bonaparte 
himself. 

It  has  once  been  said  of  the  dominions  of  the  King  of  Spain 
— thank  God!  it  can  no  longer  be  said — that  the  sun  never  set 
upon  them.  Sir,  the  sun  never  sets  on  ambition  like  this:  they 
who  have  once  felt  its  scorpion  sting  are  never  satisfied  with  a 
limit  less  than  a  circle  of  our  planet.  I  have  heard,  sir,  the  late 
coruscation  in  the  heavens  attempted  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  return  of  the  lunar  cycle,  the  moon  having  got  back  into 
the  same  relative  position  in  which  she  was  nineteen  years  ago. 
However  this  may  be,  I  am  afraid,  sir,  that  she  exerts  too  potent 
an  influence  over  our  legislation,  or  will  have  done  so  if  we 
agree  to  adopt  the  resolution  on  your  table.  I  think  about  once 
in  seven  or  eight  years,  for  that  seems  to  be  the  term  of  our 
political  cycle,  we  may  calculate  upon  beholding  some  redoubted 
champion — like  him  who  prances  into  Westminster  Hall,  armed 
cap-a-pie,  like  Sir  Somebody  Dimock,  at  the  coronation  of  the 
British  king,  challenging  all  who  dispute  the  title  of  the  sov- 
ereign to  the  crown — coming  into  this  House,  mounted  on  some 
magnificent  project  such  as  this.  But,  sir,  I  never  expected  that, 
of  all  places  in  the  world  (except  Salem)  a  proposition  like  this 
should  have  come  from  Boston! 

Sir,  I  am  afraid  that,  along  with  some  most  excellent  attri- 


264  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

butes  and  qualities — the  love  of  liberty,  jury  trial,  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  and  all  the  blessings  of  free  government,  that 
we  have  derived  from  our  Anglo-Saxon  ancestors,  we  have  got 
not  a  little  of  their  John  Bull,  or  rather  John  Bull  Dog  spirit — 
their  readiness  to  fight  for  anybody  and  on  any  occasion.  Sir, 
England  has  been  for  centuries  the  gamecock  of  Europe.  It  is 
impossible  to  specify  the  wars  in  which  she  has  been  engaged 
for  contrary  purposes ;  and  she  will,  with  great  pleasure,  see  us 
take  off  her  shoulders  the  labor  of  preserving  the  balance  of 
power.  We  find  her  fighting  now  for  the  Queen  of  Hungary — 
then  for  her  inveterate  foe,  the  King  of  Prussia — now  at  war 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Bourbons — and  now  on  the  eve  of  war 
with  them  for  the  liberties  of  Spain.  These  lines  on  the  subject 
were  never  more  applicable  than  they  have  now  become — 

"Now    Europe's    balanced — neither    side    prevails; 
For  nothing's  left   in  either   of  the  scales.' ' 

If  we  pursue  the  same  policy,  we  must  travel  the  same  road 
and  endure  the  same  burdens  under  which  England  now  groans. 
But,  glorious  as  such  a  design  may  be,  a  President  of  the  United 
States  would,  in  my  apprehension,  occupy  a  prouder  place  in 
history  who,  when  he  retires  from  office,  can  say  to  the  people 
who  elected  him,  I  leave  you  without  a  debt,  than  if  he  had 
fought  as  many  pitched  battles  as  Caesar,  or  achieved  as  many 
naval  victories  as  Nelson.  No,  sir.  Let  us  abandon  these 
projects.  Let  us  say  to  those  seven  millions  of  Greeks:  "We 
defended  ourselves  when  we  were  but  three  millions  against  a 
power  in  comparison  to  which  the  Turk  is  but  as  a  lamb.  Go 
and  do  thou  likewise/ '  And  so  with  respect  to  the  govern- 
ments of  South  America.  If,  after  having  achieved  their  inde- 
pendence, they  have  not  valor  to  maintain  it,  I  would  not  com- 
mit the  safety  and  independence  of  this  country  in  such  a  cause. 

Let  us  adhere  to  the  policy  laid  down  by  the  second,  as  well 
as  the  first,  founder  of  our  Republic — by  him  who  was  the 
Camillus,  as  well  as  the  Romulus,  of  the  infant  state; — to  the 
policy  of  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship  with  all  na- 
tions, entangling  alliances  with  none:  for  to  entangling  alli- 
ances we  must  come  if  you  once  embark  in  projects  such  as  this. 


CHAPTER   X 

Sympathy  with  Eubopean  Revolutionists  [Hungarian 

and  Ikish] 

American  Sympathy  with  the  Hungarian  Eevolutionists — President  Taylor 
Sends  Secret  Agent  to  Hungary — His  Report;  Controversy  Over  It  by 
Baron  Hiilsemann,  Austrian  Charge  d' 'Affaires,  and  Daniel  Webster, 
Secretary  of  State — Government  Brings  Louis  Kossuth,  Hungarian  Revo- 
lutionist, in  a  War  Vessel  to  America — Henry  S.  Foote  [Miss.]  Moves 
in  the  Senate  that  the  Government  Give  Kossuth  a  Reception — John  P. 
Hale  [N.  H.]  Moves  to  Amend  the  Resolution  by  Expressing  Sympathy 
with  "Victims  of  Oppression  Everywhere' ' — Debate  on  Resolution  and 
Amendment:  William  C.  Dawson  [Ga.],  Hale,  Foote,  Lewis  Cass 
[Mich.] — Resolutions  Are  Withdrawn — Resolution  of  Senator  Foote  to 
Intervene  with  Great  Britain  in  Behalf  of  Condemned  Irish  Patriots — 
Debate:  in  Favor  of  Intervention,  General  James  Shields  [111.],  William 
H.  Seward  [N.  Y.],  Senator  Cass;  Opposed,  George  E.  Badger  [N.  C] — 
John  H.  Clarke  [R.  L]  Introduces  in  the  Senate  Resolutions  against 
Intervention  in  Foreign  Affairs;  Substitutes  Are  Offered  by  Senators 
Seward  and  Cass;  Debate  on  the  Subject  Between  Clarke,  in  Favor  of 
Non-intervention,  and  Cass  and  Seward,  in  Favor  of  Intervention. 

DURING  the  time  when  Hungary  was  striving  for 
independence  from  Austria  many  refugee  Hun- 
garian patriots  had  come  to  America  in  1848-49, 
and  their  presence  and  appeals  for  aid  concentrated  the 
sympathy  which  this  country  has  always  felt  toward  re- 
publicans throughout  the  world  into  a  demand  that  the 
Government  do  what  it  could  in  helping  the  revolution- 
ists. In  June,  1849,  President  Taylor  sent  a  secret  agent 
to  Hungary  to  obtain  information  of  the  situation  with 
a  view  to  recognizing  the  independence  of  the  country. 
This  information  Taylor  laid  before  Congress,  where- 
upon the  Austrian  charge  d'affaires,  Baron  Hiilse- 
mann, entered  protest  to  the  State  Department.  About 
this  time  Fillmore  succeeded  to  the  Presidency,  and  Web- 
ster to  the  head  of  the  department.  In  December,  1850, 
Webster  in  an  able  paper  argued  that  the  United  States 

265 


266  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Government  had  violated  no  principle  of  international 
law,  saying:  "This  sympathy  (for  nations  struggling 
for  institutions  like  their  own),  so  far  from  being  neces- 
sarily a  hostile  feeling  toward  any  of  the  parties  to 
these  great  national  struggles,  is  quite  consistent  with 
amicable  relations  with  them  all." 

He  did  not  forbear  gratuitous  remarks  offensive  to 
the  dignity  of  Austria. 

"The  power  of  this  Republic,  at  the  present  moment,  is 
spread  over  a  region  one  of  the  richest  and  most  fertile  on  the 
globe,  and  of  an  extent  in  comparison  with  which  the  possessions 
of  the  house  of  Hapsburg  are  but  as  a  patch  on  the  earth 's  sur- 
face." 

In  a  letter  to  his  friend,  George  Ticknor,  Webster 
gave  the  following  as  his  reasons  for  the  "high  hand" 
he  had  taken  in  the  matter: 

"If  you  say  that  my  Hulsemann  letter  is  boastful  and  rough, 
I  shall  own  the  soft  impeachment.  My  excuse  is  twofold :  1.  I 
thought  it  well  enough  to  speak  out,  and  tell  the  people  of 
Europe  who  and  what  we  are,  and  awaken  them  to  a  just  sense 
of  the  unparalleled  growth  of  this  country.  2.  I  wished  to  write 
a  paper  which  should  touch  the  national  pride,  and  make  a  man 
feel  sheepish  and  look  silly  who  should  speak  of  disunion. ' ' 

This  paper  fulfilled  both  objects,  greatly  angering 
Austria  and  rousing  to  a  high  pitch  the  national  pride 
of  the  United  States.  There  was  a  strong  desire  to 
bring  to  America  the  exiled  Hungarian  leader,  Louis 
Kossuth.  On  February  17, 1851,  Henry  S.  Foote  [Miss.] 
moved  in  the  Senate  a  joint  resolution  empowering  the 
President  to  send  a  ship  to  Turkey,  which  was  harbor- 
ing the  exiles,  in  order  to  fetch  Kossuth  and  his  com- 
panions to  this  country.  This  was  adopted  on  Febru- 
ary 26,  and  concurred  in  by  the  House  on  March  3.  Kos- 
suth arrived  in  New  York  on  the  Mississippi  in  De- 
cember, and  met  with  an  enthusiastic  reception  from 
the  city. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  Congress  in  De- 
cember Senator  Foote  offered  a  joint  resolution  for  the 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  267 

reception  of  Kossuth  by  the  United  States  Government. 
On  the  next  day  (December  3,  1851)  a  debate  occurred 
on  the  resolution,  which  is  noteworthy  because  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  irrepressible  question  of  slavery 
was  obtruded  in  a  matter  with  which  it  had  no  seeming 
connection.  An  amendment  offered  by  John  P.  Hale 
[N.  EL],  apparently  innocent  of  all  design  to  bring  for- 
ward the  burning  issue  but  really  intended  to  do  so,  pre- 
cipitated an  angry  discussion,  in  which  Hale  was  de- 
nounced for  his  duplicity  by  Senator  Foote  and  Lewis 
Cass  [Mich.]. 

William  C.  Dawson  [Ga.]  began  the  debate  by  oppos- 
ing official  recognition  of  Kossuth. 


The  Reception  of  Kossuth 
Senate,  December  3,  1851 

Senator  Dawson. — I  see  nothing  in  the  character  of  this  dis- 
tinguished individual  which  should  make  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  get  up  a  great  pageant  on  his  account,  and 
distinguish  him  from  all  other  men  who  have  ever  lived.  Has 
he  ever  been  connected  with  our  institutions?  Has  he  ever 
rendered  any  particular  service  to  this  country  to  entitle  him 
to  this  mark  of  distinction  ?  Not  at  all.  It  is  true  he  is  a  great 
man,  but  he  is  not  greater  than  many  men  who  now  live,  and 
who  have  lived.  His  position  is  such  as  to  call  into  exercise  our 
sympathies  for  him  and  his  associates  as  men.  That  sympathy 
this  Government  has  already  shown  to  an  extent  almost  un- 
paralleled by  sending  one  of  the  national  vessels  to  receive  him 
and  his  associates,  if  they  were  willing  to  come  to  this  country. 
Have  we  not  done  enough  to  show  our  sympathies  and  our  good 
feelings?  I  think  we  have.  Against  the  man's  character  and 
course  I  utter  not  a  word.  The  American  heart  is  open  for  his 
reception.  It  is  the  people  who  will  receive  him.  It  is  the 
people  and  not  the  Government  that  ought  to  receive  him.  La- 
fayette, when  he  came  to  this  country,  was  received  in  a  man- 
ner which  was  justifiable  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  that 
day,  because  he  was  connected  with  the  Revolution  which  gave 
us  the  liberties  which  we  enjoy. 

Senator  Hale. — I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

"And  also  to  assure  him  and  his  associates  in  exile  of  the 


268  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

sympathy  of  the  Congress  and  people  of  the  United  States  with 
the  victims  of  oppression  everywhere,  and  that  their  earnest 
desire  is  that  the  time  may  speedily  arrive  when  the  rights  of 
man  shall  be  universally  recognized  and  respected  by  every 
people  and  government  of  the  world." 

If  this  be  added  to  the  resolution  I  think  it  will  obviate  the 
objection  of  the  Senator  from  Georgia;  because  then,  instead  of 
being  personal  to  Kossuth,  it  would  apply  to  the  victims  of 
oppression  everywhere,  without  any  distinction. 

Senator  Foote. — Sir,  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  seems  to 
overlook  the  fact  that  there  is  a  great  struggle  going  on  at  this 
moment  in  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world  between  the  principles 
of  freedom  and  the  principles  of  slavery.  The  tyrants  of  the 
earth  have  combined  for  the  overthrow  of  liberty.  In  some  in- 
stances open  attempts  are  made  to  break  down  political  and 
religious  freedom.  In  others  the  means  employed  by  the  ene- 
mies of  freedom  are  more  disguised  and  insidious,  but  not  at  all 
less  dangerous.  At  such  a  moment  does  it  behoove  the  Ameri- 
can people  to  join  the  side  of  despotism  or  to  stand  by  the  cause 
of  freedom?  We  must  do  one  or  the  other.  We  cannot  avoid 
the  solemn  alternative  presented.  Those  who  are  not  for  us  are 
against  us.     Those  who  are  not  for  freedom  are  for  slavery. 

The  eminent  personage  [Louis  Kossuth]  whose  claims  upon 
our  respect  and  sympathy  I  have  endeavored  to  make  manifest 
has  commended  himself  especially  to  my  regard  by  the  delicate 
and  discreet  forbearance  which  he  has  elsewhere  exercised  in 
avoiding  all  indecent  interference  with  the  domestic  institutions 
of  other  countries  than  his  own.  While  in  monarchical  Eng- 
land he  did  not  hesitate  to  avow  his  decided  partiality  for  re- 
publican institutions,  yet  no  one  can  accuse  him  of  uttering  a 
word  upon  any  occasion  which  was  in  the  least  degree  calculated 
to  awaken  popular  discontent  or  to  foment  civil  discord;  and  I 
venture  to  predict,  sir,  that  if  the  vicious  and  contriving  f action- 
ists  who  have  so  fiercely  struggled  for  several  years  past  to  dis- 
turb the  domestic  quiet  of  the  Republic  should  attempt  to  enlist 
Louis  Kossuth  in  their  unholy  designs,  they  will  incur  such  a 
withering  rebuke  from  his  lips  as  will  make  them  wish,  for  a 
moment,  at  least,  that  the  Almighty  in  his  providence  had  never 
permitted  such  miscreants  to  pollute  the  pure  air  of  heaven  with 
their  pestilential  breath. 

Senator  Hale. — What  is  this  amendment?  Why,  that  we 
shall  assure  to  this  illustrious  man,  as  dear  to  my  affections  as 
to  his — dear  to  my  affections  for  the  principles  which  he  has 
advocated,  and  for  the  maintenance  and  advocacy  of  which  he 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  269 

is  now  an  exile — that  we  shall  assure  him  and  his  associates  in 
exile  of  the  sympathy  of  the  Congress  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States  not  only  with  them  but  with  the  victims  of  oppres- 
sion everywhere.  Is  there  any  intimation  there  that  the  hon- 
orable Senator  means  to  find  fault  with?  Does  he  mean  to 
intimate  that  in  this  land  there  is  a  place  where  the  rights  of 
man  are  not  respected  and  recognized?  If  he  does,  he  utters  a 
fouler  slander  upon  the  country  and  upon  some  of  the  States  of 
the  Confederacy  than  I  would  allow  myself  to  utter  in  this 
place. 

I  wish  Kossuth  to  come  here,  in  his  very  person,  a  living 
reproach  to  despotism  of  whatever  name  and  wherever  it  may 
be.  I  want  him  to  go  about  among  the  people  of  the  land,  the 
living  advocate  of  the  rights  of  man,  so  that  everybody,  wher- 
ever he  may  be,  who  feels  in  his  own  breast  that  he  is  guilty 
of  any  invasion  or  infraction  of  these  rights  when  he  looks  into 
the  face  of  Kossuth  may  see  there  the  lineaments  that  speak 
out  reproach.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  honor  him,  and  that  is 
the  reason  why  I  wish  him  to  come  here. 

There  are  other  victims  of  oppression.  There  are  the  victims 
of  English  oppression.  The  people  of  this  country  have  been 
moving  lately  to  get  the  kind  offices  of  this  Government  to  inter- 
fere in  behalf  of  O  'Brien,  Mitchell,  and  their  associates.  I  want 
this  resolution  to  reach  them.  I  want  to  let  it  go  just  exactly 
as  far  as  the  history  of  the  United  States  goes.  I  want  it  to  go, 
as  was  eloquently  said  by  a  distinguished  orator  of  this  country 
to  Lafayette  when  he  was  here,  speaking  to  him  of  the  voice  of 
Washington  that  was  raised  in  his  behalf,  that  that  voice  of  sym- 
pathy could  reach  him  even  in  the  dungeons  of  Austria.  Well, 
if  there  are  victims  of  oppression  in  the  dungeons  of  Austria, 
or  of  any  other  government  on  earth,  I  want  this  expression  of 
the  sentiments  of  the  American  people  to  be  broad  enough  to 
reach  them.  I  want  Kossuth,  and  Mitchell,  and  O'Brien,  and 
everybody  else  that  is  suffering  in  the  great  cause  of  human 
rights  and  human  liberty,  to  feel  that  here,  without  division  and 
without  partiality,  there  is  the  entertainment  of  an  honest  and 
earnest  and  zealous  respect  for  the  course  they  have  pursued. 

Owing  to  the  opposition  which  Foote  met,  both  from 
Southerners  and  Northerners,  he  withdrew  his  resolu- 
tions, whereat  Kossuth  openly  expressed  his  opinion  of 
a  Government  that  had  invited  him  to  be  its  guest  and 
almost  immediately  afterward  had  refused  htm  and  his 
cause  official  recognition. 


270  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Sympathy  with  Ikeland 

The  question  of  extending  sympathy  to  the  Irish  vic- 
tims of  English  oppression,  to  which  Senator  John  P. 
Hale  [N.  H.]  referred  in  the  previous  debate,  had  been 
brought  forward  in  the  Senate  on  December  2,  1851,  by 
Henry  S.  Foote  [Miss.]  in  a  joint  resolution  "express- 
ive of  the  sympathy  of  Congress  for  the  exiled  Irish 
patriots,  Smith  O'Brien  and  Thomas  F.  Meagher,  and 
their  associates."  This  resolution  authorized  a  corre- 
spondence in  which  appeal  should  be  made  to  the  mag- 
nanimity of  the  British  Government  and  people  request- 
ing the  liberation  of  these  persons  from  their  present 
confinement  and  offering  to  receive  them  ' l  upon  the  hos- 
pitable shores  of  the  United  States." 

On  January  29  General  James  Shields  [111.]  offered 
in  the  Senate  this  amendment  to  the  resolution : 

"Disclaiming  all  intention  to  interfere  in  the  internal  affairs 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  we  would  regard 
this  act  of  clemency  as  a  new  proof  of  the  friendly  disposition 
of  the  British  Government  toward  our  Republic,  and  as  calcu- 
lated to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  affection  now  happily  existing 
between  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland/ ' 

On  February  7  General  Shields  supported  the  motion 
and  his  amendment  in  an  eloquent  speech.  William  H. 
Seward  [N.  Y.]  and  Lewis  Cass  [Mich.]  spoke  in  similar 
vein  in  favor  of  the  motion,  and  George  E.  Badger 
[N.  C]  opposed  it. 

Liberation  of  the  Irish  Patriots 

Senate,  February  7-11,  1852 

General  Shields. — Mr.  President,  I  have  prepared  the  amend- 
ment which  I  now  take  the  liberty  of  offering  as  a  substitute  for 
the  original  resolution  offered  by  a  Senator  [Mr.  Foote],  now 
no  longer  a  member  of  this  body.  I  am  exceedingly  anxious  for 
its  passage  because,  as  it  now  stands,  I  think  it  preserves  the 
dignity  of  this  Government  and  can  give  no  reasonable  offence  to 
the  English  Government;  and  I  firmly  believe  it  will  effect  a 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  271 

humane  and  Christian  object — the  liberation  of  those  unfortu- 
nate men  from  captivity.  I  may  as  well  state  that  O'Brien, 
Meagher,  and  O'Donahoe  were  convicted  of  treason  and  sen- 
tenced to  be  hanged,  drawn,  and  quartered — which  sentence  was 
afterward  commuted,  by  virtue  of  an  express  statute,  into  trans- 
portation for  life.  Mitchell,  Martin,  and  O 'Dougherty  were 
convicted  of  sedition — an  offence  made  felony  and  a  species  of 
treason  by  a  statute  expressly  enacted  for  the  occasion,  and  they 
were  sentenced  to  be  transported — Mitchell  for  fourteen  years 
and  Martin  and  0  'Dougherty  for  ten  years  each.  These  six  per- 
sons are  now  in  captivity  in  Van  Diemen's  Land.  The  punish- 
ment is  not  so  cruel  as  it  is  degrading;  but,  to  men  like  these, 
death  would  be  more  acceptable  than  degradation.  And  what 
can  be  more  degrading  than  to  confine,  and  in  a  measure  con- 
found, such  noble  spirits  with  the  vilest  convicted  criminals  of 
the  British  empire?  If  this  resolution  has  the  effect,  as  I  hope 
it  will,  of  restoring  these  Irish  patriots  to  liberty,  it  will  be  a 
work  of  beneficence,  and  the  action  of  this  Government  will  be 
to  them  like  the  interposition  of  an  angel  of  mercy.  But  if  it 
even  fails  to  accomplish  this  object,  it  will  still  be  successful  in 
another  respect :  it  will  sound  like  a  voice  of  encouragement  to 
the  captives — the  voice  of  a  great  people.  It  will  give  consola- 
tion and  hope;  and,  if  it  waft  them  nothing  but  hope,  it  will 
lighten  their  captivity  and  brighten  their  dreary  existence  in 
that  far-distant  land.  As  one  of  the  friends  of  these  Irish 
exiles,  I  take  this  occasion  to  state  to  the  Senate— and  I  think  I 
interpret  the  wishes  of  all  their  friends  when  I  make  this  state- 
ment— that  if  they  have  the  good  fortune  to  ever  reach  our 
shores,  we  have  no  wish  to  see  them  welcomed  with  any  public 
demonstration  or  display  like  that  which  has  been  just  rendered 
to  the  illustrious  Kossuth.  We  ask  nothing  of  that  kind.  We 
wish  to  see  them  receive  no  other  welcome  or  reception  than 
that  which  the  generous  American  heart  always  renders  to  the 
noble  unfortunate. 

In  the  passage  of  this  resolution  all  we  declare  is  that  the 
liberation  of  these  Irish  patriots  would  be  gratifying  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  Surely  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
objection  to  this.  We  ask  that  they  be  permitted  to  emigrate  to 
this  country — to  incorporate  themselves  with  our  citizens,  and 
live  here  quietly  and  peacefully  under  the  protection  of  our  free 
Constitution.  There  are  strong  natural  reasons  for  the  interest 
which  the  people  of  this  country  take  in  the  fate  of  Ireland  and 
Irishmen.  Not  only  are  millions  of  native  Irishmen  citizens  of 
this  country  at  this  time,  but  Irish  blood  runs  warmly  in  the 


272  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

veins  of  more  than  half  the  people  of  the  United  States.  There 
is  still  another  and  a  higher  view  of  this  matter,  and  one  which 
seems  to  me  to  rise  above  all  the  etiquette  of  diplomacy.  In  one 
sense  the  people  of  this  country  and  of  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land may  be  considered  as  one  great  distinct  family  of  the  hu- 
man race,  connected  by  strong  natural  and  traditional  relations, 
which  exist  to  the  same  extent  among  no  other  people  on  earth 
— blood,  language,  literature,  the  memories  of  the  past  and  the 
hopes  of  the  future.  America  may  be  considered  not  only  the 
second  home  but  the  ultimate  home  of  millions  who  are  born 
under  the  British  flag.  How,  then,  can  it  even  be  suspected  that 
under  all  these  circumstances  an  application  of  this  kind  could 
offend  the  British  Government?  So  far  from  being  offensive, 
sir,  in  my  humble  opinion  it  is  complimentary  to  that  Govern- 
ment. The  British  Government  has  nothing  to  gain  by  continu- 
ing these  men  in  confinement,  and  nothing  to  risk  in  their  liber- 
ation. It  has  nothing  to  fear  from  Irish  agitation  now.  Ireland 
is  at  this  moment  as  feeble,  helpless,  and  hopeless  as  the  most 
anti-Irish  heart  can  desire.  Her  nationality  is  gone ;  her  hopes 
are  crushed ;  her  ancient  generous  race  is  becoming  extinct.  She 
has  no  future — or,  if  she  has,  it  is  a  dark  one.  At  such  a  time, 
and  under  such  circumstances,  how  can  any  government,  great 
and  powerful  as  the  English  Government  is,  retain  the  last  de- 
fenders of  such  a  nation  in  captivity  ? 

At  this  age  of  the  world  I  think  it  is  generally  admitted 
that  to  punish  a  man  for  a  political  offence,  without  a  very 
strong  political  necessity,  is  not  an  act  of  justice  or  self-defence, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  an  act  of  cruel,  useless,  and  impolitic  ven- 
geance. The  British  Government  is  too  proud  and  powerful  to 
stoop  to  the  wicked  weakness  of  vengeance.  I  think  the  present 
a  very  favorable  time  for  moving  in  this  affair  and  for  pre- 
ferring this  request.  The  most  friendly  relations  exist  at  this 
time  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain.  There  is  a  strong 
feeling  of  mutual  regard  and  common  interest,  and,  perhaps  I 
may  add,  a  sense  of  common  danger  uniting  the  people  of  both 
countries  at  this  moment  in  close  and  intimate  connection.  The 
English  people,  so  far  as  I  can  observe,  are  beginning  to  appre- 
ciate the  character,  resources,  and  institutions  of  this  country, 
and  to  look  with  something  like  admiration  upon  the  growth  of 
this  continental  republic.  Not  only  England  but  the  world 
begins  to  see  and  acknowledge  that  this  nation  is  destined  to 
future  supremacy. 

The  example  of  England  herself  would  be,  perhaps,  the  best 
argument  we  could  use  in  favor  of  this  resolution,  or  to  enforce 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  273 

this  request.  Her  history,  in  fact,  is  full  of  examples,  not  only 
of  intercession  hut  of  interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
other  nations.  England  interfered  directly  in  behalf  of  Kos- 
suth and  his  companions — while  we  merely  intercede  for  Smith 
O'Brien  and  his  associates.  She  defended  these  Hungarians 
against  Austria  and  Russia;  we  only  appeal  to  her  own  clem- 
ency for  the  liberation  of  Irish  patriots.  She  contributed  to 
the  liberation  of  Austrian  subjects,  although  they  are,  in  a 
certain  sense,  still  dangerous  to  the  Austrian  Government.  We 
simply  request  the  liberation  of  British  subjects  whose  freedom, 
in  my  opinion,  at  this  time  will  serve  to  strengthen  the  English 
Government.  We  all  recollect  the  universal  delight  with  which 
the  American  people  witnessed  the  first  interference  of  England 
in  behalf  of  the  Hungarian  exiles.  When  the  British  fleet  ap- 
peared at  the  mouth  of  the  Dardanelles — when  the  Red  Cross 
of  England  joined  the  Crescent  of  Mahomet,  and  blazed  in  de- 
fence of  the  exile  and  the  unfortunate — all  America,  with  one 
voice,  shouted  glory  and  honor  to  the  flag  of  Old  England. 
She  acted  gloriously  on  that  occasion.  Her  conduct  called  forth 
the  applause  of  the  liberal  world.  But  now  we  have  to  moderate 
this  applause  when  we  think  of  Van  Diemen's  Land.  We  give 
her  credit  for  her  generosity  abroad,  but  we  are  sorry  to  be 
compelled  to  refuse  her  equal  credit  for  her  clemency  at  home. 
Patriotism  cannot  be  a  virtue  in  Hungary  and  a  crime  in  Ire- 
land. England  may  be  able  to  make  some  distinction  between 
the  two  cases,  but  the  world  will  refuse  to  recognize  it.  She 
will  raise  her  national  character  in  the  estimation  of  the  world — 
she  will  establish  her  disinterestedness  before  the  tribunal  of 
history  and  posterity — if  she  follow  up  her  conduct  toward  the 
Hungarians  with  the  liberation  of  the  Irish  exiles.  As  it  is,  her 
conduct  is  severely  criticized  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  The 
Austrians  and  Russians  especially  accuse  her  of  hypocrisy — of 
violating  the  great  law  of  moral  and  political  consistency — of 
traversing  half  the  globe  in  defence  and  support  of  Hungarian 
patriots,  while  at  the  same  time  she  proscribes,  banishes,  and 
imprisons  Irish  patriots.  They  say  English  philanthropy  is  like 
the  philanthropy  of  the  elder  Mirabeau,  who  was  styled  ''The 
Friend  of  Man,"  for  his  universal  benevolence,  while  he  prac- 
ticed at  the  same  time,  within  the  bosom  of  his  own  family,  the 
most  cruel,  heartless,  and  unrelenting  tyranny. 

This  is  the  kind  of  indictment  the  Continent  prefers  against 
England  at  this  time.  I  am  not  prepared  to  endorse  it.  On 
the  contrary,  I  am  thoroughly  convinced  she  will  avail  herself  of 
the  first  favorable  opportunity  to  clear  her  reputation  from  any 


274  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

such  reproach.  I  am  inclined  to  think  she  will  feel  thankful  to 
this  Government  for  supplying  her  with  a  fair  occasion,  a  grace- 
ful pretext,  to  perform  a  humane  and  politic  act.  The  world 
will  then  see  that  she  is  not  governed,  either  in  her  foreign  or 
domestic  policy,  by  jealousy  of  Russia  or  hatred  of  Austria,  but 
by  a  great  principle  of  philanthropy  and  humanity. 

If  we  weigh  the  conduct  of  these  Irish  patriots,  not  in  legal 
but  in  moral  scales,  we  will  find  much  to  justify  their  attempt. 
They  loved  their  native  country.  There  is  no  moral  guilt  in 
this.  On  the  contrary,  the  love  of  country  is  one  of  the  noblest 
sentiments  of  our  nature.  When  this  sentiment  fades  from  the 
soul,  the  soul  has  lost  its  original  brightness.  In  Ireland,  how- 
ever, this  sentiment  is  almost  considered  a  political  offence. 
There  is  something  so  unnatural  in  this  state  of  things,  that 
what  the  English  law  denounces  as  treason  the  Irish  heart  recog- 
nizes as  patriotism.  An  Irish  patriot  hears  himself  pronounced 
guilty  in  what  is  called  the  sanctuary  of  justice,  while  he  feels 
in  the  sanctuary  of  his  heart  that  he  stands  guiltless  before  God 
and  his  country. 

Poor  Ireland!  Her  history  is  a  sad  one.  It  is  written  in 
the  tears  and  blood  of  her  children.  Her  sons  have  been  so  long 
accustomed  to  injustice  that  they  regard  themselves  as  aliens 
and  outcasts  in  the  very  land  that  God  gave  them  as  a  heritage. 
Yet  they  love  their  country  with  all  the  fervor  of  the  Irish 
heart.  The  more  she  suffers  the  more  they  love  her.  This  love 
has  become  almost  a  part  of  their  religion  and  of  their  fervent 
devotion  to  their  God.  As  her  own  sweet  poet  [Thomas  Moore] 
has  so  truly  and  beautifully  said : 

1 '  Her  chains  as  they  rankle,  her  blood  as  it  runs, 
But  make  her  more  painfully  dear  to  her  sons." 

Ireland  has  always  been  an  incorrigible  and  irreconcilable 
rebel  against  power;  but  when  her  oppressors  became  unfortu- 
nate she  became  loyal;  when  they  became  friendless  and  help- 
less, she  drew  the  sword  and  poured  out  her  blood  for  them  in 
the  hour  of  their  adversity.  The  Stuarts  at  the  head  of  the  em- 
pire were  her  cruel  and  constant  oppressors;  yet  Ireland  sacri- 
ficed herself  for  the  last  monarch  of  that  ungrateful  race,  when, 
abandoned  by  his  favorites  and  betrayed  by  his  family,  he  fled 
from  his  throne — an  exile,  a  wanderer,  friendless  and  unfortu- 
nate. 

I  hope  it  will  be  allowable  on  this  occasion  to  refer  to  the 
conduct  of  the  Irish  in  your  own  glorious  Revolution.  History 
attests  that  during  that  whole  period  of  trial  and  struggle  a 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS         275 

single  Irish  Tory  was  not  to  be  found  in  the  thirteen  colonies. 
Both  here  and  in  Ireland,  at  home  and  abroad,  the  Irish  heart 
declared  openly  and  fearlessly  in  favor  of  the  colonies.  Who 
defended  their  cause  in  the  British  Parliament  with  more  elo- 
quent ability  than  Edmund  Burke?  And  who  defended  it  in 
the  hour  of  danger  with  more  unselfish  devotion  than  the  brave 
Montgomery?  The  Irish  were  true  to  this  country  then,  and 
they  are  true  to  it  still ;  they  have  always  proved  true,  in  word 
and  deed,  to  the  republican  institutions  of  this  country. 

I  would  appeal  to  the  people  of  England  for  justice  to  Ire- 
land as  quickly  at  this  moment  as  I  would  to  any  other  people 
on  earth  except  the  American  people.  Ireland  has  never  been 
governed  by  the  English  people.  It  has  been  governed  by  an 
Anglo-Irish  oligarchy — an  oligarchy  that  has  had  no  instinct 
but  selfishness ;  no  passion  but  the  preservation  of  its  own  class. 
The  government  of  Ireland  was  the  government  of  a  caste, — 
the  very  abstraction  of  an  evil  government.  Such  a  government 
would  have  ruined  any  other  country  as  well  as  Ireland.  There 
was  certain  ruin  in  the  very  principle  upon  which  it  gov- 
erned. That  principle  was  to  anglicize  Ireland — to  force  an 
English  government  on  the  Irish  race,  an  English  church  on 
Irish  consciences,  and  English  habits  on  Irish  hearts, — in  a 
word,  to  transform  Irishmen  into  Englishmen.  Of  course  the 
experiment  has  failed. 

There  is  a  national  as  well  as  a  personal  individuality.  No 
people  can  be  improved  or  elevated  except  through  the  medium 
of  their  own  nationality.  To  develop  a  people  we  must  respect 
the  scruples  of  the  national  conscience — the  virtues  of  the  na- 
tional heart,  and  the  aspirations  and  even  prejudices,  of  the 
national  mind.  National  varieties  are  as  necessary  to  improve 
and  develop  the  human  race  as  individual  varieties.  And  polit- 
ical systems  ought  to  be  as  various  as  the  varieties  of  national 
character.  A  political  system  to  improve  and  develop  a  people 
must  grow  out  of  the  habits  and  circumstances  of  that  people. 
It  must  be  the  natural  product  of  the  country. 

The  first  requirement  for  Ireland  is  religious  liberty ;  not  tol- 
eration, but  full,  equal,  absolute  religious  liberty.  She  will  never 
be  satisfied  until  she  obtains  this  boon.  There  is  nothing  so 
dangerous  to  a  government  in  a  perilous  crisis  as  a  powerful, 
dissatisfied  religious  party,  like  the  Roman  Catholic  party  of 
the  British  Empire;  and  nothing  so  harmless  as  religious  sects 
or  parties,  when  a  government  abolishes  all  religious  distinctions 
and  gives  full,  perfect,  and  absolute  religious  liberty  to  all.  If 
you  want  to  put  down  religious  agitation  and  destroy  clerical 


276  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

influence,  give  the  people  equal  and  universal  religious  liberty. 
This  is  a  truth  very  well  understood  in  this  country,  yet,  strange 
to  say,  it  has  hitherto  escaped  the  penetration  of  the  first  states- 
men of  Europe. 

Ireland  also  requires  political  liberty  and  an  equitable  share 
of  all  the  advantages  of  the  British  Government  and  British 
Empire,  and  above  all,  the  Irish  people  require  an  absolute 
interest  in  the  soil  of  their  country.  As  it  is,  Ireland  may  be 
considered  a  vast  warren — a  hunting  ground  for  absentee  nobil- 
ity ;  and,  unhappily,  the  spoils  of  the  chase  are  the  hearts,  hopes, 
and  lives  of  the  Irish  peasantry.  I  have  long  watched  and 
waited  to  see  some  great  English  statesman  arise,  who  could 
grapple  with  this  monster  difficulty. 

But,  after  all,  Ireland  must  be  the  great  agent  of  her  own 
regeneration;  she  must  not  depend  upon  England,  or  upon 
America,  or  upon  the  Continent.  If  she  looks  to  the  absolutists 
of  Europe  for  support,  as  I  apprehend  she  does  at  this  moment, 
she  will  be  deceived  and  disappointed  and  betrayed.  There  is 
not  a  despot  in  Europe,  large  or  small,  from  the  Czar  of  Russia 
to  the  King  of  Naples,  who  would  not,  at  this  moment,  sell  and 
sacrifice  Ireland  and  all  her  hopes  to  purchase  the  friendship 
of  the  English  Government. 

I  know  it  is  difficult  to  form  a  correct  judgment  of  the  true 
policy  of  a  distant  nation;  but,  after  long  reflection  upon  this 
subject,  I  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  present  policy 
of  Ireland  is  to  abandon  all  idea  of  a  political  separation  from 
England.  Her  own  nationality  is  gone.  She  can  never  recover 
or  restore  either  her  old  language  or  her  old  nationality.  If 
she  were  an  independent  nation  this  moment,  her  great  effort 
should  be  to  build  up  a  new  nationality  conformable  to  her  pres- 
ent moral,  social,  and  political  condition.  Her  policy  now  is 
to  make  the  most  of  her  present  political  connection,  and  to  avail 
herself  of  all  the  political,  commercial,  industrial,  and  intellec- 
tual advantages  of  the  British  Empire.  She  should  cooperate  on 
all  occasions  with  the  most  liberal  English  party.  She  should 
throw  her  whole  weight  into  the  scale  of  liberalism.  Her  move- 
ment should  be  an  imperial  one ;  and  by  acting  in  this  manner 
she  would  raise  and  regenerate  herself  in  contributing  to  elevate 
and  liberalize  the  whole  empire. 

Senator  Seward. — I  am  told  that  we  may  lawfully  sympa- 
thize, as  individuals,  in  the  misfortunes  of  these  unhappy  men, 
and  of  their  more  unhappy  country ;  but  that  to  us  as  a  political 
body — a  state  or  nation — or  as  the  representatives — the  gov- 
ernment of  a  nation — such  sympathy  is  forbidden.    This  seems 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  277 

to  me  equivalent  to  saying  that  we  may  indulge  sentiments  of 
generous  compassion,  but  we  shall  never  carry  them  into  benefi- 
cent action.  The  sympathy  of  the  several  members  of  this  Sen- 
ate, or  of  this  Congress,  or  of  the  individual  citizens  of  the 
United  States  will  be  unavailing.  If  that  sympathy  is  truly  felt 
by  the  nation,  it  can  only  be  effectually  expressed  in  the  manner 
in  which  national  sympathies  and  determinations  of  the  national 
will  are  always  made  effective — by  the  action  of  the  Government. 
And,  sir,  let  me  say  that  there  is  only  one  code  of  morals  for 
mankind,  and  its  obligations  bind  them  equally,  whether  they 
be  individuals,  subjects,  citizens,  states,  or  nations. 

I  shall  be  told  that  we  may  not  intervene  in  this  which  is  a 
domestic  affair  of  a  foreign  government.  It  is  true  that  we  may 
not  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  any  government  for  unjust  pur- 
poses, nor  can  we  intervene  by  force  for  even  just  or  benevolent 
purposes.  But  this  is  the  only  restraint  imposed  on  us  by  the 
law  of  nations.  That  law,  while  it  declares  that  every  govern- 
ment has  the  absolute  right  to  deal  with  its  own  citizens,  accord- 
ing to  its  own  laws,  independently  of  any  other,  affords  a  large 
verge  and  scope  for  the  exercise  of  offices  of  courtesy,  kindness, 
benevolence,  and  charity.  It  is  Montesquieu  who  says  that  ' '  the 
law  of  nations  is  founded  upon  the  principle  that  every  nation 
is  bound  in  time  of  peace  to  do  to  every  other  nation  all  the 
good  it  possibly  can,  and  in  time  of  war  the  least  evil  it  possibly 
can  consistently  with  its  own  real  interests.,,  It  is  upon  this 
humane  principle  that  diplomatic  intercourse  is  maintained 
among  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  all  of  whom  are  by  the 
law  of  nations  regarded  as  constituting  one  great  commonwealth. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  will  be  said  that,  if  we  adopt  this  reso- 
lution, it  will,  however  harmless  it  be  in  itself,  furnish  a  prece- 
dent for  mischievous  intervention,  either  by  ourselves  in  the 
affairs  of  other  states  or  by  other  states  in  our  affairs  hereafter. 
To  admit  this  argument  is  to  admit  distrust  of  ourselves.  We 
certainly  do  not  distrust  our  own  sense  of  justice.  We  do  not 
distrust  our  own  wisdom.  So  long  as  we  remain  here,  then,  we 
shall  be  able  to  guard  against  any  such  abuse  of  this  precedent. 
Let  us  also  be  generous  instead  of  egotistical,  and  let  us  believe 
that  neither  wisdom  nor  justice  will  die  with  those  who  occupy 
these  places  now,  but  that  our  successors  will  be  as  just  and  as 
wise  as  we  are.  So  far  as  the  objection  anticipates  an  abuse 
of  this  precedent  by  foreign  states,  I  have  only  to  say  that  if  a 
foreign  state  shall  ask  of  us  just  what  we  now  propose, 
and  no  more,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  and  no  ground 
of  complaint.     If  it  shall  ask  more,  we  shall  be  free  to  reject 


278  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

what  is  asked,  as  the  British  Government  is  free  to  reject  our 
application. 

Sir,  this  proposition  involves  a  view  of  the  relations  of  the 
parties  concerned.  The  people  of  Ireland  are  affiliated  to  us,  as 
we  are  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain.  Surely  there  can  be  no 
offence  given  by  a  younger  member  in  offering  mediation  between 
the  elder  brethren  of  the  same  family  upon  a  point  of  difference 
between  them. 

But  what  if  Great  Britain  should  take  offence  at  this  sug- 
gestion? What  then?  Why,  then  England  would  be  in  the 
wrong,  and  we  in  the  right.  The  time  has  passed  when  this 
country  can  be  alarmed  by  fear  of  war  in  such  a  case.  No  one 
will  confess  that  he  indulges  any  such  apprehension.  Sir,  Great 
Britain  will  not  take  offence.  She  knows  that  her  greatness  and 
her  fame  are  well  assured.  She  has  no  motive  whatever  to  affect 
wounded  sensibility.  She  will  receive  this  suggestion  in  the  same 
fraternal  spirit  in  which  it  is  made.  Nor  will  she  refuse  the 
boon.  She  knows  as  well  as  we  do  that  rigor  protracted  beyond 
the  necessity  of  security  to  the  state  reacts.  She  knows  full 
well  that  for  the  present,  at  least,  sedition  sleeps  profoundly  in 
Ireland,  and  that  the  granting  of  this  appeal  will  protract  its 
slumbers.  Great  Britain  will  be  thankful  to  us  for  our  confi- 
dence in  her  generosity,  for  her  motto  is  "Par cere  subjectis  et 
debellare  superbos."1 

The  points  of  Senator  Cass,  who  followed,  will  be 
found  as  quoted  by  Senator  Badger,  the  next  speaker. 

Senator  Badger. — After  every  examination  which  I  have 
been  able  to  give  this  subject,  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  it 
is  proper  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should  pass  the 
resolution  in  any  of  the  forms  in  which  it  has  been  proposed  to 
our  consideration.  If  I  could  vote  for  the  resolution  in  any  form, 
I  would  undoubtedly  vote  for  it  in  that  which  it  has  assumed 
upon  the  suggestion  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr. 
Shields]  ;  and  if  anything  could  persuade  me  to  forego  the  ex- 
ercise of  my  own  deliberate  judgment  and  put  myself  under  the 
mastery  of  those  feelings  which  are  apt  to  be  excited  by  dis- 
cussions of  this  kind,  to  favor  the  adoption  of  the  resolution,  it 
would  be  the  speech  delivered  on  last  Saturday  by  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Illinois,  full  as  it  was  of  everything  that  can  do 
honor  to  a  man's  head  and  heart. 

But  whatever  my  feelings  of  attachment,  consideration,  or 

*"To  spare  the  abject  and  war  down  the  proud." 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  279 

sympathy  for  the  other  nations  and  races  of  the  world — and  I 
trust  I  am  not  deficient  in  those  feelings  of  consideration  and 
sympathy — I  must  prefer  my  own  country,  my  own  race,  the 
people  and  institutions  among  which  I  was  born  and  in  which 
I  have  been  reared,  to  all  other  nations  and  all  other  races  in 
the  world.  I  cannot,  therefore,  consent  to  give  my  support  to 
any  measure,  however  commended  to  us  by  high  considerations 
of  sympathy,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  capable  of  having  an 
unjust  and  injurious  operation  upon  the  country  to  which  I 
belong. 

This  resolution  proposes  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  shall  express,  and  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
shall  declare,  and  that  we  feel  it  our  duty  to  express  an  earnest 
desire  that  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  will  extend  her  royal 
clemency  to  certain  Irish  prisoners  now  confined,  under  a  sen- 
tence, to  Van  Diemen's  Land.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  do  not 
feel  myself  called  upon  by  my  duty  as  an  American  Senator  to 
express  any  sentiment  upon  that  subject.  But  that  would  be — 
that  is — the  smallest  of  the  difficulties  that  press  upon  my  mind. 
Though  I  cannot  recognize  the  duty,  yet  if  no  evil  consequences 
could  be  readily  imagined  to  result  from  it,  I  might,  neverthe- 
less, be  willing  to  give  expression  to  the  wish.  But,  sir,  I  ask 
you,  who  have  had  no  little  experience  in  the  state  and  condition 
of  our  foreign  affairs,  and  the  management  of  our  diplomatic 
relations  with  other  countries,  and  the  reciprocal  operations  of 
proceedings  of  this  kind,  whether  we  can  affirm  that  there  is  no 
danger  from  the  precedent  which  we  are  now  setting  ? 

My  honorable  friend  from  Michigan  [Mr.  Cass],  in  the  re- 
marks which  he  addressed  to  the  Senate — remarks  conceived  and 
expressed,  I  will  not  say  with  a  force  and  clearness  that  were  not 
usual  with  him  but  certainly  with  great  force  and  clearness — 
has  laid  down  some  propositions  to  which  I  wish  to  invite  the 
attention  of  the  Senate,  and  to  show,  if  I  can,  that  the  mode  by 
which  he  undertakes  to  defend  the  proceedings  now  recom- 
mended to  us  is  one  that  must,  or,  at  all  events,  one  that  may, 
lead  to  mischievous  counterinterference  with  our  concerns;  and 
that  the  suggestions  which  he  has  thrown  out  for  the  purpose  of 
dissipating  the  fear  of  such  a  result,  when  properly  considered, 
are  entitled  to  no  weight. 

First,  the  Senator  laid  down  a  proposition  in  these  words: 

"Mr.  President,  a  great  change  has  taken  place  in  the  opin- 
ions of  the  world  on  the  subject  of  political  offences.  They  no- 
where carry  with  them  reproach  or  shame.  They  violate,  indeed, 
existing  laws;  but  they  generally  originate  in  the  most  praise- 


280  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

worthy  motives,  and  are  pursued  at  the  hazard  of  every  earthly 
good,  as  Washington  and  a  host  of  other  industrious  men  in  an- 
cient and  modern  days  pursued  their  patriotic  enterprises. ' ' 

Again,  he  says: 

"They"  (alluding  to  political  offenders)  "are  recognized  as 
being  unfortunate  but  not  vicious.  Indeed,  they  are  often 
noble  men,  as  are  those  whose  case  engages  our  attention,  and 
who  deserve  the  kind  interest  of  the  world,  both  from  their  mo- 
tives and  their  character,  and  also  from  the  position,  once  high, 
but  now  low,  to  which  they  have  fallen,  and  in  consequence  of 
an  effort,  made,  not  for  themselves,  but  for  their  country.  It 
cannot  be — there  is  not  the  slightest  danger  of  it — that  such  a 
national  application  will  ever  be  made,  in  any  case  but  in  one 
like  this,  which  is  as  far  from  moral  guilt  as  innocence  is  from 
crime.  Let  no  one  fear  that  this  example  will  ever  be  used,  or 
abused,  for  the  purpose  of  intermeddling  in  the  ordinary  crim- 
inal proceedings  of  other  powers. ' ' 

Again,  the  honorable  Senator  says : 

"As  to  improper  interference,  it  seems  to  me  an  entire  mis- 
construction of  the  term  to  apply  it  to  a  case  like  this.  It  is 
not  interference  at  all ;  it  is  intercession.  It  is  a  simple  request, 
made  from  the  best  motives,  in  the  best  spirit,  and  presented 
in  the  most  unexceptionable  language ;  and  it  leaves  the  British 
Government  free  to  act  its  own  pleasure,  without  giving  us  the 
slightest  offence  should  the  result  be  unsuccessful. ' ' 

Now,  I  wish  to  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  is  interfer- 
ence. Intercession  is  one  mode  of  interference.  It  is  not  an 
offensive  mode  of  interference ;  but  it  is  a  mode  of  interference. 
He  who  undertakes  to  intercede  between  the  judge  and  the  of- 
fender— between  the  sovereign  and  his  convicted  subject,  un- 
doubtedly interferes.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  honorable  Senator 
is  entirely  mistaken  in  supposing  that  intercession  is  not  inter- 
ference. It  is  true  that  all  interference  is  not  intercession, 
because  we  may  interfere  by  threats,  by  violence,  by  blows ;  but 
it  is  no  less  true  that  every  intercession  is  an  interference.  Then 
I  am  not  exactly  prepared  to  admit  the  fundamental,  the  orig- 
inal proposition,  from  which  the  argument  of  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Michigan  starts,  which  is  that  political  offences, 
though  they  violate  existing  laws,  are  yet  offences  accompanied 
with  no  moral  guilt.  I  can  conceive  of  such  a  thing  as  a  polit- 
ical offence  which,  though  violating  municipal  laws,  is  not  accom- 
panied with  moral  guilt;  but  I  do  not  think  it  is  regularly  or 
generally  the  case,  or  can  be  affirmed  as  a  proposition  either 
universal  or  with  but  few  exceptions.  But,  assuming  it  to  be  so : 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  281 

then  the  honorable  Senator  says  we  come  forward  and  do  not 
interfere,  but  intercede  for  these  political  offenders  upon  the 
ground  that  they  are  persons  free  from  moral  guilt;  that  they 
are  noble  patriots  who  have  been  condemned  to  a  grievous  im- 
prisonment— originally  condemned  to  the  forfeiture  of  life — 
for  the  discharge  of  high  acts  of  patriotic  duty  to  their  country ; 
and  that  the  noblest  motives  influenced  them  in  what  they  had 
done;  and  that  they  are  not  to  be  considered  as  affected  with 
any  species  of  moral  guilt. 

Now,  be  it  so.  Assume  that  it  is  so,  and  that  we  wish  it  to 
be  so.  How  was  the  transaction  viewed  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment? That  Government  prosecuted  these  men  as  traitors — 
for  an  attempt  to  overturn  the  existing  government  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  For  this  offence 
they  were  convicted.  For  this  offence  they  received  the  sentence 
of  death;  but  the  sentence  was  afterward  commuted  to  an  ex- 
patriation or  exile  in  Van  Diemen's  Land.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  English  Government  will  scarcely  think  that  when  they  have 
prosecuted  these  men  for  an  offence  of  this  kind,  pronounced 
by  their  laws  to  be  capital,  when  after  conviction  and  judgment 
they  have  not  thought  proper  to  pardon  the  convicts  but  have 
exchanged  the  sentence  of  death  to  that  of  banishment  from  the 
realm,  that  they  are  honorable  and  noble  men,  who  have  been 
influenced  by  high  and  patriotic  motives  in  what  they  have 
done.  The  British  Government  looks  upon  them  in  a  far  differ- 
ent light  and  description.  Well,  that  being  the  case,  how  does 
it  follow  that  we  have  no  reason  to  fear  that  if  we  set  this  ex- 
ample, we  shall  not  have  it  followed  with  a  very  unpleasant  and 
disagreeable  interference  in  the  administration  of  our  own  laws  ? 

Now,  let  us  suppose  for  one  moment  that  some  of  the  actors 
in  the  Christiana  riot  [for  the  liberation  of  fugitive  slaves]  had 
been  found  guilty  of  high  treason.  They  were  indicted  for  that 
crime.  High  treason  is  a  political  offence.  I  pray  you,  sir,  if 
that  case  would  not  in  a  few  sympathizing  minds,  on  the  other 
side  of  the  water,  have  presented  a  case  with  all  the  claims 
which  the  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan  brings  forward  in 
behalf  of  these  Irish  exiles,  for  the  interference  of  the  masses, 
or  the  governments,  or  the  parliaments,  or  the  other  legislative 
assemblies  on  the  other  side  of  the  water,  under  the  strong  feel- 
ings of  modern  humanity  and  general  sympathy  for  the  op- 
pressed everywhere?  Why,  to  those  people  these  Christiana 
rioters  would  have  appeared  noble  men — guilty,  it  is  true,  of 
committing  the  little  technical  offence  of  violating  the  municipal 
laws  of  the  country,  convicted,  to  be  sure,  of  what  was  called 


282  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

treason  against  the  United  States,  but  influenced  by  high  and 
noble  motives,  under  the  full  inspiration  of  the  "higher  law" 
enthusiasm,  which  prompted  them  to  come  forward  and  at  every 
hazard,  not  for  the  benefit  of  themselves,  but,  as  my  friend 
from  Michigan  said  with  regard  to  these  gentlemen,  for  the  bene- 
fit of  their  country,  to  relieve  the  oppressed,  and  to  prevent  the 
wronged  and  hunted  wayfarer  from  being  dragged  back  into 
the  captivity  from  which  he  had  luckily  escaped.  They  would 
be  looked  upon  as  men  influenced  by  a  high  and  lofty  spirit  of 
hospitality,  who,  with  outstretched  arms,  were  willing,  even  at 
the  hazard  of  destroying  the  Constitution  of  their  country,  to 
carry  into  effect  the  high,  noble,  and  generous  purposes  and 
impulses  of  their  nature.  If  we  think  that  it  is  our  duty  to 
interpose,  because  we  look  upon  these  persons  who  have  been 
sentenced  to  this  punishment  by  a  foreign  nation  as  meritorious 
and  noble  men,  entitled  to  our  sympathies  and  accompanied 
with  no  moral  blame — how  can  we  resist  the  right  of  a  foreign 
state,  of  a  foreign  parliament  or  legislative  body,  to  interfere 
in  precisely  the  same  mode  with  regard  to  citizens  of  ours  whom 
we  may  think  worthy  of  the  extremest  punishment,  but  which 
they  regard  as  occupying  the  same  relation  to  moral  guilt  which 
we  attribute  to  the  persons  in  whose  behalf  this  resolution  is 
now  proposed?  We  should  cut  ourselves  off,  by  adopting  this 
proceeding,  from  any  right  to  object.  I  see  not  where  the  thing 
would  end.  Resolutions  of  the  British  Parliament  may  be  passed 
and  sent  to  us,  or  communicated  to  us,  in  a  kind  of  indirect, 
secret,  and  unostentatious  mode,  to  which  the  Senator  has  re- 
ferred, through  their  minister  in  this  country. 

Upon  this  subject  I  wish  to  practice  upon  the  old-fashioned 
morality  of  doing  as  I  would  be  done  by.  I  want  no  interference 
of  foreign  states  or  governments  in  our  internal  affairs  any- 
where, and  therefore  I  am  not  willing  to  set  a  practical  example 
of  such  an  interference  on  our  behalf  with  their  internal  con- 
cerns. I  know  that  this  resolution  springs  from  the  highest  and 
best  motives.  I  know  that  my  honorable  friend  from  Illinois 
[Mr.  Shields],  who  has  moved  it,  has,  at  least  in  my  judgment, 
no  superior  in  the  honorable,  the  fine,  and  elevated  sentiments 
that  belong  to  the  human  heart.  But  it  was  well  remarked,  as 
I  think  Sallust  or  some  of  those  old  Roman  writers  told 
us,  that  Caesar  once  said  in  the  Roman  Senate  that  there  was 
never  any  course  of  measures  which  had  brought  ruin  upon  a 
country  which,  at  the  first  outset,  did  not  spring  from  some  good 
motive,  and  in  the  initiative  were  intended  to  accomplish  some 
good  end. 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  283 

The  honorable  Senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  Seward]  in  the 
remarks  which  he  submitted  to  the  Senate  this  morning,  after 
reassuring  us  that  there  was  no  danger  that  Great  Britain 
would  take  any  offence  at  this  proceeding,  became  exceedingly- 
bold,  and  held  in  very  slight  regard  and  estimation  any,  even 
the  most  serious,  displeasure  of  that  power.  I  am  not  a  very 
valiant  man,  and  I  confess  myself  to  have  a  pretty  large  share 
of  that  extreme  reluctance  as  well  to  cutting  the  throats  of  other 
people  as  to  having  my  own  cut  which  is  denominated  by  the 
word  fear.  And  I  go  one  step  further.  In  my  representative 
capacity  I  have  a  great  deal  of  fear  of  involving  this  country 
in  collisions  with  the  great  powers  of  the  earth.  Who  should  not 
fear  it?  Is  not  war  a  dreadful  evil?  Is  not  a  war  with  the 
greatest  naval  and  commercial  power  of  the  earth  a  fearful  evil  ? 

I  fear  putting  ourselves  wrong  in  the  outset  of  such  a  pro- 
ceeding. If  we  must  have  a  conflict  with  Great  Britain,  or  any 
other  nation,  let  us  be  right  in  the  commencement,  in  the  prose- 
cution, and  throughout  the  whole  conflict.  And  rely  upon  it,  sir, 
that  when  such  a  conflict  comes,  if  come  it  must,  which  God  for- 
bid, those  who  have  some  little  salutary  fear  beforehand  of  the 
coming  emergency  will  not  be  found  the  least  resolute  to  do 
what  that  emergency  may  require. 

I  have,  however,  an  objection  to  this  resolution  of  another 
and  different  kind  from  that  suggested  by  the  Senator  from  New 
York.  It  has  been  said  by  the  Senator  from  Michigan  that 
Great  Britain  will  not  regard  this  in  the  light  of  an  officious 
intermeddling  with  her  concerns.  We  hear  from  various  quar- 
ters that  the  probability  is  that  the  British  Government,  acting 
upon  this  intimation  of  the  wishes  of  the  American  people,  will 
gladly  interpose  and  discharge  these  gentlemen  from  their  hard 
captivity.  For  one,  I  should  be  sorry  that  the  British  Govern- 
ment should,  at  our  interposition,  and  as  a  favor  to  us,  set  these 
gentlemen  at  liberty.  And  why  ?  Because  it  is  very  obvious  that 
that  places  us  under  an  obligation  to  the  British  Government. 
It  not  only  entitles  them  to  interfere,  by  way  of  interceding  in 
behalf  of  our  people,  if  any  of  them  should  be  convicted  of 
offences  similar  to  that  to  which  I  have  referred,  but  it  also  en- 
titles them  to  come  with  a  claim  upon  us  that  they  should  be 
heard.  I,  for  one,  am  not  willing  that  this  country  should  lay 
itself  under  any  such  obligation  to  the  clemency,  or  courteous- 
ness,  or  kindness  of  the  British  Queen. 

Let  us  have  a  little  common  sense  in  the  regulation  of  our 
concerns.  Do  not  let  us  be  carried  away  captive  with  emotions 
which,  however  generous  and  noble  in  themselves,  do  not  fur- 


284  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

nish  the  proper  guides  for  representative  conduct.  A  man,  in 
the  private  transactions  of  life,  may  allow  a  profuse  generosity 
and  inability  to  refuse  any  applicants  for  help  to  exhaust  his 
purse  and  beggar  himself  for  life;  and  when  this  is  done,  how- 
ever severely  we  may  disapprove  of  it,  we  are  obliged  to  have 
a  sympathy  for  him  who,  under  such  generous  impulses,  has  sac- 
rificed himself;  but  representatives  and  nations  are  bound,  in 
my  judgment,  to  have  all  their  sympathies  and  feelings  under 
thorough  and  complete  control — to  regulate  themselves  by 
understanding — to  let  common  sense  weigh,  in  all  their  delibera- 
tions, because  they  are  not  like  a  generous  man  who  squanders 
his  own,  for,  if  they  yield  themselves  up  to  these  unguided  im- 
pulses, they  squander  what  is  not  their  own — the  wealth,  the 
power,  the  resources  of  the  state  of  which  they  are  only  the  rep- 
resentatives.    They  sacrifice  not  themselves,  but  their  country. 

Non-Intervention"  in  Foreign  Affairs 

As  a  result  of  the  debates  on  the  Kossuth  reception 
and  the  resolution  of  sympathy  with  the  Irish  patriots, 
John  H.  Clarke  [R.  I.],  on  January  19,  1852,  introduced 
in  the  Senate  the  following  resolutions: 

Resolved,  That  Congress  recognizes  and  reaffirms  these  mani- 
fest truths:  "That  governments  are  instituted  among  men  to 
secure  the  inalienable  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed;  that  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  de- 
structive of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or 
to  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its  foun- 
dation upon  such  principles  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such 
form  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and 
happiness. 

Resolved,  That  while  we  claim  for  ourselves  these  comprehen- 
sive rights  of  self-government,  and  also,  as  a  consequence  of  sov- 
ereignty, the  right  to  be  exempt  from  the  coercion,  control,  or 
interference  of  others  in  the  management  of  our  internal  affairs, 
we  concede  to  others  the  same  measure  of  right,  the  same  un- 
qualified independence. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  upon  the  sacred  principle  of  independent 
sovereignty  that  we  recognize,  in  our  intercourse  with  other  na- 
tions, governments  de  facto,  without  inquiring  by  what  means 
they  have  been  established,  or  in  what  manner  they  exercise 
their  powers. 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  285 

Resolved,  That  this  Government  has  solemnly  adopted,  and 
will  perseveringly  adhere  to,  as  a  principle  of  international  ac- 
tion, the  advice  given  by  Washington  in  his  Farewell  Address: 
"Observe  good  faith  and  justice  toward  all  nations;  cultivate 
peace  and  harmony  with  all."  "Give  to  mankind  the  magnani- 
mous and  too  novel  an  example  of  a  people  always  guided  by 
an  exalted  justice  and  benevolence. "  u  Sympathy  for  a  favorite 
nation  betrays  itself  into  a  participation  in  the  quarrels  and 
wars  of  another,  without  adequate  inducement  or  justification. ' ' 
"Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence  the  jealousy  of 
a  free  people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake;  for  foreign  influ- 
ence is  the  most  baneful  foe  of  republican  governments. "  "  The 
true  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foreign  nations  is,  in 
extending  our  commercial  relations,  to  have  with  them  as  little 
political  connection  as  possible."  "Why  quit  our  own  to  stand 
upon  foreign  ground?  Why,  by  interweaving  our  destiny  with 
that  of  any  part  of  Europe,  entangle  our  peace  and  prosperity  in 
the  toils  of  European  ambition,  rivalship,  interest,  humor,  or 
caprice  ? ' ' 

Resolved,  That,  while  we  cherish  the  liveliest  sympathy  to- 
ward all  who  strive  for  freedom  of  opinion  and  for  free  institu- 
tions, yet  we  recognize  our  true  policy  in  the  great  fundamental 
principles  given  to  us  by  Jefferson:  "Equal  and  exact  justice 
to  all  men,  of  whatever  state  or  persuasion,  religious  or  political ; 
peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship,  with  all  nations,  en- 
tangling alliances  with  none. ' ' 

Resolved,  That,  although  we  adhere  to  these  essential  prin- 
ciples of  non-intervention,  as  forming  the  true  and  lasting  foun- 
dation of  our  prosperity  and  happiness,  yet  whenever  a  provi- 
dent foresight  shall  warn  us  that  our  own  liberties  and  insti- 
tutions are  threatened,  then  a  just  regard  to  our  own  safety  will 
require  us  to  advance  to  the  conflict  rather  than  await  the  ap- 
proach of  the  foes  of  our  constitutional  freedom  and  of  human 
liberty. 

To  these  resolutions  William  H.  Seward  [N.  Y.] 
offered  the  following  amendment : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  second  resolution  and  insert 
the  following  : 

Resolved,  That  while  the  United  States,  in  consideration  of 
the  exigencies  of  society,  habitually  recognize  governments  de 
facto  in  other  states,  yet  that  they  are,  nevertheless,  by  no  means 
indifferent  when  such  a  government  is  established  against  the 


286  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

consent  of  any  people  by  usurpation  or  by  armed  intervention 
of  foreign  states  or  nations. 

Resolved,  That,  considering  that  the  people  of  Hungary,  in 
the  exercise  of  the  right  secured  to  them  by  the  laws  of  nations, 
in  a  solemn  and  legitimate  manner  asserted  their  national  inde- 
pendence, and  established  a  government  by  their  own  voluntary 
act,  and  successfully  maintained  it  against  all  opposition  by 
parties  lawfully  interested  in  the  question;  and  that  the  Em- 
peror of  Russia,  without  just  or  lawful  right,  invaded  Hungary 
and,  by  fraud  and  armed  force,  subverted  the  national  inde- 
pendence and  political  constitution  thus  established,  and  thereby 
reduced  that  country  to  the  condition  of  a  province  ruled  by 
a  foreign  and  absolute  power:  the  United  States,  in  defence 
of  their  own  interests,  and  of  the  common  interests  of  mankind, 
do  solemnly  protest  against  the  conduct  of  Russia  on  that  occa- 
sion as  a  wanton  and  tyrannical  infraction  of  the  laws  of  na- 
tions; and  the  United  States  do  further  declare  that  they  will 
not  hereafter  be  indifferent  to  similar  acts  of  national  injustice, 
oppression,  and  usurpation,  whenever  or  wherever  they  may 
occur. 

Lewis  Cass  [Mich.]  also  offered  the  following  substi- 
tute for  Senator  Clarke  's  resolutions : 

Resolved,  That  while  the  people  of  the  United  States  sym- 
pathize with  all  nations  who  are  striving  to  establish  free  gov- 
ernments, yet  they  recognize  the  great  principle  of  the  law  of 
nations  which  assures  to  each  of  them  the  right  to  manage  its 
own  internal  affairs  in  its  own  way,  and  to  establish,  alter,  or 
abolish  its  government  at  pleasure,  without  the  interference  of 
any  other  Power ;  and  they  have  not  seen,  nor  could  they  again 
see,  without  deep  concern,  the  violation  of  this  principle  of  na- 
tional independence. 

On  February  9  Senator  Clarke  spoke  upon  his  reso- 
lutions and  Senator  Cass's  substitute.  Reply  was  made 
on  February  10  by  Senator  Cass,  and  on  March  9  by- 
Senator  Seward. 

Non-Intervention 

Senate,  February  9-March  9,  1852 

Senator  Clarke. — These  resolutions  affirm  the  true  doc- 
trines of  self-government,  as  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  our 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  287 

Independence.  They  take  the  farewell  advice  of  the  great  and 
good  Washington  for  our  political  chart,  and  they  reiterate  the 
wise  declarations  of  Jefferson,  whose  precepts  are  oftener  upon 
the  lips  than  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  claim  to  be  his  peculiar 
disciples.  His  conservative  principles,  by  no  means  extreme,  are 
cast  aside  as  the  dogmas  of  a  bygone  age.  Sir,  it  is  time  that 
we  recurred  to  our  ancient  political  landmarks.  As  the  mar- 
iner consults  his  chart,  and  takes  by  day  the  altitude  of  the 
sun,  and  at  night  his  observations  are  directed  to  the  stars, 
so,  sir,  it  is  healthful  for  us  to  go  back  to  the  principles  and  the 
policy  of  our  Government — break  upon  the  altar  of  our  faith 
the  sacramental  bread,  and  renew  our  fidelity  to  the  maxims 
which  our  fathers  established,  and  which  have  borne  them  and 
us  from  feeble  infancy  to  a  high  and  vigorous  and  unsullied 
manhood. 

Senator  Clarke  then  recounted  the  events  which  had 
led  up  to  Washington's  Proclamation  of  Neutrality  in 
the  French-British  War  of  1793  [see  Chapter  I],  and 
read  the  proclamation. 

John  Marshall,  in  his  "Life  of  Washington,"  speaking  of 
this  proclamation,  says: 

"This  measure  derives  importance  from  the  consideration 
that  it  was  the  commencement  of  that  system  to  which  the 
American  Government  afterward  inflexibly  adhered,  and  to 
which  much  of  the  national  prosperity  is  to  be  ascribed. " 

Mr.  President,  the  policy  of  our  Government,  thus  settled 
by  Washington,  has  been  confirmed  and  reaffirmed  by  succeed- 
ing statesmen  from  that  to  the  present  day,  and  can  hardly  be 
obliterated  from  the  faith  of  either  of  the  great  parties  of  the 
country. 

The  Senator  from  Michigan  has  offered  a  substitute  for  the 
resolution  which  I  propose — repudiating  the  Farewell  Address 
of  Washington. 

Gently  and  tenderly  he  tells  us  that  the  interference  of  one 
nation  in  the  affairs  of  another  cannot  be  seen  without  "deep 
concern."     But  he  proposes  no  definite  action. 

The  substitute  assumes  "that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  sympathize  with  all  nations  who  are  striving  to  estab- 
lish free  governments,"  which  is  palpable,  and  to  its  utmost 
extent  true.  But  the  Senator  from  New  York,  in  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  him,  goes  more  boldly  to  his  purpose.  In  the 
first  place,  he  would  "protest"  against  national  intervention, 


288  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

and  afterward  "  would  not  be  indifferent  to  similar  acts  of  na- 
tional injustice." 

In  a  quarrel  between  the  retainers  of  the  rival  houses  of 
Montague  and  Capulet  we  have  a  fair  example  of  this  mode  of 
warfare  by  protest.  "Deep  concern "  and  not  being  "indiffer- 
ent to  national  injustice"  (preceded  by  an  avowal  that  no  force 
is  contemplated)  is  here  well  illustrated  in  the  quarrel  between 
the  retainers  of  the  houses. 

"Abram.    Do  you  bite  your  thumb  at  us,  sir? 
"Sampson.    Is  the  law  on  our  side  if  I  say  aye? 
"Gregory.     No. 

"Sampson.  I  do  not  bite  my  thumb  at  you,  sir;  but  I  bite 
my  thumb,  sir. 

"Gregory.    Do  you  quarrel,  sir? 
"Abram.    Quarrel,  sir?    No,  sir." 

The  doctrine  of  non-intervention  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
other  nations  has  been  the  settled  and  reiterated  policy  of  our 
country.  A  departure  from  these  established  truths  can  lead 
only  to  a  resort  to  the  strong  arm,  and  put  at  hazard  the  rich 
inheritance  of  freedom  which  we  enjoy,  and  the  rich  fruits 
which  a  benign  Providence  has  mercifully  bestowed  upon  us. 

Far  more  are  we  doing  for  the  liberation  of  man  by  our 
quiet  and  peaceful  example  than  could  possibly  be  effected  by 
wasting  our  energies  in  a  conflict  of  opinion  with  the  despots 
of  the  world,  and  in  favor  of  a  people  unsuited,  by  intelligence 
and  education,  to  appreciate  blessings  prematurely  forced  upon 
them  by  even  a  Christian  charity,  which  would  waste  itself  and 
do  them  no  good. 

The  liberty  and  happiness  of  our  country,  now  and  forever, 
may  be  in  oar  keeping,  and  the  solemn  trust  should  be  executed 
with  judgment,  with  caution,  and  with  prudence.  The  vast  and 
incomprehensible  influence  of  such  a  people  will  silently  but 
surely  work  its  way  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  our 
institutions  will  shed  a  mild  and  gentle  light  upon  degraded 
and  oppressed  humanity.  It  is  our  solemn  duty  carefully  to 
cherish  and  preserve  the  rich  blessings  we  enjoy,  and  which 
have  never  before  been  given  to  man,  and  not  venture  them 
upon  the  sea  of  every  nation's  disquietude.  As  that  duty  is 
performed,  so  will  God  and  our  own  right  arm  protect  us. 

Senator  Cass. — My  objections  to  the  original  proposition  are 
not  to  the  great  truths  it  enunciates — truths  drawn  from  our 
own  State  papers,  of  the  best  days  of  the  Republic,  for  to  their 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  289 

eternal  justice  I  yield  a  cheerful  acquiescence — but  to  the  nar- 
row application  it  is  designed  to  make  of  them.  They  met,  and 
were  intended  to  meet,  the  circumstances  of  the  country,  con- 
nected with  our  right  to  the  new  position  we  had  assumed  as 
a  member  of  the  family  of  nations,  and  with  occurrences  which 
took  place  not  long  afterward,  but  they  went  no  further.  The 
obligations  which  subsequent  events  might  impose  upon  us  in 
relation  to  ambitious  pretensions,  incompatible  with  the  public 
law  and  the  independence  of  nations,  they  neither  foresaw  nor 
defined.  And  thus  is  it  that  we  must  push  our  inquiry  beyond 
these  limits  before  we  reach  the  great  question  of  our  true  duty 
and  policy  now  in  face  of  us. 

In  the  brief  examination  I  propose  to  give  to  the  subject 
before  us,  with  a  view  to  practical  results  rather  than  to  profit- 
less speculations,  I  have  no  intention  of  entering  into  the  vexed 
question  of  the  origin  of  international  law,  nor  into  the  true 
grounds  of  the  obligations  by  which  civilized  communities  are 
required  to  submit  to  it.  I  assume  at  once  the  duty  of  all 
Christian  people  to  recognize  its  binding  force,  and  to  aid  its 
operations  so  far  as  they  can  properly  do  it.  Certainly  we  can- 
not trace  back  this  code  to  a  universal  legislative  origin  as  we 
can  trace  back  a  municipal  statute  to  its  local  source.  It  grew 
out  of  the  necessity  of  regulating  the  intercourse  between  inde- 
pendent countries,  in  peace  and  in  war;  and  traces  of  its  exist- 
ence may  be  found  in  the  earliest  recorded  annals  of  nations. 
It  began  by  assuaging  the  horrors  of  war,  and  by  restraining 
the  cruelties  of  barbarous  conquerors;  and  by  degrees,  from  a 
few  simple  maxims,  it  has  become  an  elaborate  system,  coexten- 
sive with  civilization,  and  appealing  not  less  to  the  sense  of 
interest  than  to  that  of  morality  by  substituting  fixed  and  just 
principles  for  those  wayward  passions  which,  without  such  an 
arbiter,  would  make  the  world  one  vast  theater  of  carnage. 

The  elementary  commentaries  of  wise  and  learned  men,  the 
decisions  of  enlightened  jurists,  and  the  discussions  of  able 
statesmen  have  built  up  the  system,  and  it  is  a  beautiful  monu- 
ment of  the  progress  and  improved  condition  of  society.  For 
it  has  not  been  a  fixed  and  immutable  code,  but  has  accommo- 
dated itself  to  the  advancing  opinions  and  necessities  of  the 
world.  Few  and  meager  were  at  first  its  provisions,  like  the 
wants  it  was  designed  to  meet;  but,  as  these  increased,  it  in- 
creased with  them,  till  it  has  become  one  of  the  most  useful,  if 
not  one  of  the  proudest,  works  of  the  human  intellect. 

And  let  no  one  reproach  it  with  inutility  or  imbecility,  be- 
cause it  is  not  always  a  barrier  against  interest  and  ambition; 


290  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

but  rather  let  us  be  thankful  that  it  is  so  often  appealed  to  and 
so  often  effectual  in  restraining  the  turbulent  passions  of  our 
nature.  And  such  is  the  force  of  public  opinion,  in  this  the 
days  of  its  strength,  that,  even  when  the  provisions  of  inter- 
national law  are  evaded  or  neglected,  its  obligations  are  rarely, 
never  indeed,  denied,  but  constructions  for  selfish  purposes  are 
put  upon  it,  forced  and  false  it  is  true,  but  a  tribute  to  its  worth, 
even  while  its  injunctions  are  practically  disregarded. 

It  well  becomes  us  and  the  principles  of  our  institutions  to 
profess  our  fealty  to  this  great  code  of  public  morality ;  and  not 
merely  to  profess  it,  but  prove  it,  by  our  acts  and  declarations, 
and  labor  to  enforce  its  obligations  and  its  observance.  It  is 
a  curious  subject  to  trace  the  changes  it  has  undergone,  even  in 
very  late  years,  almost  all  marked  by  the  progress  of  just  opin- 
ions and  by  meliorations  honorable  to  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
It  is  a  great  engine  for  good,  but  powerless  for  evil — a  barrier 
against  injustice  and  oppression,  asserting  the  empire  of  reason 
over  that  of  force. 

The  time  has  come  when  we  have  as  much  right  and  as  much 
power  to  speak  authoritatively  on  this  subject  as  any  other  na- 
tion on  the  face  of  the  globe.  All  we  want,  while  professing  the 
duty  of  obedience,  is  that  other  nations  should  equally  obey  it. 
There  is  none  so  high  as  to  be  above  its  obligations;  none  so 
low  as  to  be  beneath  its  protection. 

We  believe  in  the  right  and  in  the  capacity  of  man  for  self- 
government — not  that  he  is  everywhere  prepared  for  institu- 
tions like  ours.  We  know,  while  we  regret,  that  he  is  not.  But 
we  believe  that  he  is  everywhere  fitted  even  now  for  taking 
some  part  in  the  administration  of  political  affairs,  greater  or 
less,  in  proportion  to  his  experience  and  condition;  and  that 
everywhere,  with  time  and  practice,  he  may  improve  himself 
and  his  government  till  both  become  as  free  as  the  state  of 
society  will  permit.  And  certainly  the  expression  of  the  warm 
hope  that  this  time  will  come  and  come  speedily  is  consistent 
with  every  respect  for  other  powers. 

We  claim  no  right  to  interfere  in  their  internal  concerns. 
While  we  are  firm  believers  in  our  own  political  faith,  we  enter 
into  no  crusade  to  establish  it  elsewhere.  Propagandism  is  no 
part  of  our  creed,  unless  it  be  that  propagandism  which  works 
its  own  way  by  the  force  of  example,  thus  inviting  the  oppressed 
nations  of  the  earth  to  do  as  we  have  done,  and  to  be  as  free 
and  happy  as  we  are.  But  we  cannot  be  indifferent  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  human  race,  however  widely  scattered.  A  desire 
for  its  improvement,  morally  and  materially,  is  a  sentiment 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  291 

natural  to  man.  And  an  American  can  hardly  shut  himself 
up  in  his  own  selfish  egotism,  thanking  God,  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Pharisee,  that  his  country  is  better  off  than  any  other,  and  in- 
different to  the  oppression,  and  degradation,  and  misery  which 
centuries  of  bad  government  have  entailed  upon  so  large  a  por- 
tion of  the  earth.  Unless  the  many  were  made  for  the  few,  the 
governed  for  the  governors,  our  sympathies  should  be  excited, 
as  were  those  of  Washington,  for  every  people  unfurling  the 
banner  of  freedom,  and  a  God-speed  them  be  uttered,  not  only 
in  the  effort  to  improve  their  political  system,  but  in  the 
greater  effort  to  maintain  it  by  improving  the  condition  of  the 
great  body  of  those  for  whom  governments  are  instituted.  And 
may  we  not  say,  as  an  English  parliamentary  orator  said  very 
recently  for  his  country,  "that  the  spirit  of  our  people  is  for 
freedom  every  where  V '  And  may  we  not  echo  his  sentiment 
and  declare  "that  they  would  not  rest  satisfied  with  seeing  the 
ultima  ratio  of  European  policy  lodged  in  the  bayonet  of  the 
barbarian  ? ' ' 

Now,  sir,  what  we  want  is  that  freedom  should  have  a  fair 
battlefield.  That  whenever  a  struggle  is  commenced  to  over- 
throw an  arbitrary  government,  other  despotic  powers  should 
not  be  permitted  to  take  part  in  the  contest  and  with  foreign 
bayonets  decide  the  issue. 

Such  is  our  desire,  and  this  principle  of  non-interference 
is  well  established  in  the  code  of  public  law.  It  lies  at  the  very 
foundation  of  national  independence.  I  need  not  multiply 
proofs  or  illustrations  of  the  truth  of  this  doctrine.  It  was 
well  laid  down  by  Mr.  Roebuck  in  the  English  House  of  Com- 
mons, when  he  said:  "The  important  principle  with  which  we 
have  to  deal  was  that  in  the  internal  affairs  of  any  country 
there  should  be  no  external  force  or  pressure. ' '  Its  recognition 
goes  back  to  the  time  of  the  Romans,  for  we  are  told  that,  when 
certain  Carthaginians  preferred  charges  against  Hannibal,  Scipio 
declared  that  the  Roman  senate  would  not  be  justified  in  inter- 
meddling in  the  affairs  of  Carthage. 

There  is  one  highly  respectable  authority — and  I  know  of 
no  other — Vattel,  who  holds  that,  in  a  state  of  civil  war,  any 
other  power  may  assist  the  party  which  it  believes  to  be  just. 
But  it  is  obvious  that  such  a  principle  would  open  every  case 
to  direct  armed  intervention  at  the  will  of  any  foreign  govern- 
ment; which  has  only  to  say,  such  a  party  has  justice  on  its 
side  and  I  will  aid  it.  Now,  sir,  this  doctrine  is  contradicted 
as  well  by  reason  as  by  the  whole  current  of  authorities.  Wild- 
man,  one  of  the  most  recent  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  able 


292  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

commentators  on  the  law  of  nations,  condemns  the  position  of 
Vattel,  into  which  he  says  he  was  led  by  "a  misconstruction 
of  a  passage  of  Grotius,,,  and  "that  it  is  as  little  reconcilable 
with  reason  as  it  is  with  precedent.' '  He  examines  the  cases 
fully  and  shows  how  erroneous  is  this  doctrine,  and  announces 
the  result  thus: 

"But  this  restriction  of  interference  in  favor  of  the  cause 
of  justice  is  an  absolute  prohibition  of  interference  on  the  part 
of  those  who  have  no  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  justice  of 
the  cause.  Hence  it  follows  that  no  foreign  power  has  any  right 
to  interfere  in  the  internal  affairs  of  an  independent  state. ' ' 

Establish  this  doctrine  of  Vattel,  and  the  Emperor  Nicholas, 
who  no  doubt  believes  every  despotic  cause  a  just  one,  would 
have  a  right  to  send  his  armies  everywhere  to  repress  the  efforts 
of  freedom. 

The  system  of  international  law  would  not  be  worth  the 
paper  on  which  it  is  written  if  such  examples  of  contempt  for 
the  feelings  and  rights  of  mankind  as  Russia  has  exhibited  in 
the  case  of  Hungary  admitted  neither  resistance  nor  remon- 
strance. * '  Concession, ' '  says  Bentham,  in  his  forcible  language, 
"Concession  to  notorious  injustice  invites  fresh  injustice";  and 
this  is  nowhere  more  true  than  in  the  career  and  conduct  of  na- 
tions. And  we  find  that  the  right  of  independent  powers  to 
express  their  opinions  upon  grave  questions  of  public  law,  when 
that  law  has  been  violated,  has  been  so  often  and  so  openly 
exercised  that  no  doubt  can  exist  of  the  right  and  indeed  of 
the  duty  of  thus  acting,  when  the  nature  and  the  gravity  of  the 
circumstances  require  such  a  measure. 

It  is  the  interest  of  each  nation  that  the  rights  of  all  should 
be  respected,  because  the  spectator  of  injustice  to-day  may 
be  its  victim  to-morrow;  and  none  of  the  barriers  against  am- 
bition and  tyranny  can  be  broken  down  without  danger  to  the 
civilized  world.  Every  power  must  judge  for  itself  how  far 
its  own  interests  may  be  touched  by  the  pretensions  advanced, 
and  what  course  true  policy  requires  it  should  take.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  evil  day  should  be  upon  it  before  it  makes 
known  its  disapprobation,  for,  in  that  case,  aggressions  would 
be  eternal,  or  war  the  only  remedy  to  resist  them. 

We  have  a  direct  interest,  a  material  interest,  if  you  dis- 
claim every  principle  of  action  but  the  utilitarian  principle, 
in  the  benefits  of  commercial  intercourse,  and  in  the  prosperity 
and  stability  and  independence  of  nations,  by  which  the  re- 
sources and  commerce  of  a  country  are  increased,  and  in  the 
maintenance  of  those  great  principles  which  protect  these  rights. 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  293 

But  I  agree  with  one  of  the  most  independent  of  the  public 
men  of  England,  Mr.  Roebuck,  that  higher  considerations  may 
justly  influence  our  actions,  and  that  "we  should  not  bind 
up  all  our  feelings  in  the  interchange  of  commodities,  or  the 
sordid  question  of  profit  or  loss.  He  believed  there  was  some- 
thing more  in  the  souls  of  the  people  than  that."  And  the 
sentiment,  advanced  by  Lord  Palmerston,  that  a  great  country 
should  not  "be  a  passive  and  mute  spectator  of  everything  that 
goes  on  around' '  deserves  our  commendation  and  concurrence. 

There  is  not  a  page  of  modern  diplomatic  history  in  which 
may  not  be  read  the  outlines  I  have  already  referred  to  of 
national  conduct.  But  a  strange  error  seems  to  prevail  respect- 
ing one  branch  of  this  subject  which  it  is  necessary  to  examine, 
not  from  the  support  it  derives  from  reason  or  authority,  but 
from  the  confidence  with  which  it  is  urged,  and  because,  if  not 
corrected,  it  may  paralyze  the  national  action  in  all  time  to 
come. 

This  erroneous  doctrine  has  been  widely  and  confidently 
spread  and  seeks  to  deter  us  from  expressing  any  opinion  upon 
the  law  of  nations  by  an  apprehension  of  the  consequences.  It 
is  maintained  that  in  all  cases  where  a  nation  makes  such  a 
declaration  it  is  bound  to  support  its  views  by  war  if  these 
are  not  acquiesced  in,  or  it  will  lose  its  own  self-respect  and  sub- 
ject itself  to  the  contumely  of  the  world.  There  is  not  the  least 
foundation  in  reason  or  authority  or  precedent,  for  such  an  as- 
sumption.   It  is  gratuitous  as  it  is  untenable. 

Mr.  President,  the  particular  form  in  which  a  nation  makes 
known  its  views,  from  the  most  common  diplomatic  note  to  the 
most  solemn  protests,  neither  adds  to  nor  takes  from  its  re- 
sponsibility or  obligation.  It  appears  to  be  assumed  that  there 
is  some  peculiar  pugnacious  quality  attached  to  a  protest  which 
necessarily  leads  to  armed  action.  This  is  not  so.  A  public 
declaration  in  that  form  no  more  imposes  on  the  nation  making 
it  the  duty  of  vindicating  it  by  arms  than  the  every  day  rep- 
resentations which  the  usual  diplomatic  intercourse  renders  nec- 
essary. To  be  sure,  the  proceeding  is  more  solemn,  as  the  sub- 
jects generally  are  more  grave;  and  it  goes  forth  to  the  world 
under  circumstances  of  deliberation  which  give  to  such  declara- 
tions more  than  usual  importance.  But  that  they  are  necessarily 
followed  by  war  whenever  they  fail  in  the  result  is  contradicted 
by  all  the  diplomatic  experience  of  modern  times. 

"  Manifestoes, ' '  says  Bentham,  and  such  declarations  are  a 
kind  of  protest,  "are  in  common  usage.  A  manifesto  is  designed 
to  be  read  either  by  the  subjects  of  the  state  complained  of  or 


294  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

by  other  states  or  by  both.  It  is  an  appeal  to  them.  It  calls  for 
their  opinion.,,  A  new  school  of  expounders  has  arisen  which 
denounces  them  as  appeals  to  force. 

Our  own  history  presents  a  memorable  example  of  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  right  to  declare  a  principle  of  national  law.  Mr. 
Monroe's  views  on  a  similar  question,  solemnly  announced  to 
Congress  and  the  world,  form  a  well-known  part  of  our  political 
history.  And,  though  his  doctrine  has  not  been  wholly  effica- 
cious, it  has,  no  doubt,  contributed,  with  other  causes,  to  the 
stability  of  the  independence  of  the  American  States,  and  to 
check  the  spirit  of  colonization. 

Certainly  solemn  public  declarations  of  this  nature  should 
not,  would  not  indeed,  often  be  made,  for  their  frequent  occur- 
rence would  impair,  if  not  destroy,  their  moral  effect.  They 
should  be  reserved  for  those  extraordinary  events,  affecting  the 
honor  and  stability  of  all  nations,  which  stand  prominently  for- 
ward in  the  history  of  the  world ;  characteristics,  indeed,  of  the 
age  in  which  they  occur.  Let  no  man,  therefore,  object  that 
such  a  conservative  remedy,  for  once  the  epithet  is  a  just  one, 
will  lead  to  abuse  or  will  destroy  itself  by  too  frequent  applica- 
tion. 

We  ought  neither  to  mistake  our  position  nor  neglect  the 
obligations  it  brings  with  it.  We  have  at  length  reached  the 
condition  of  one  of  the  great  powers  of  the  earth,  and  yet 
we  are  but  in  the  infancy  of  our  career.  The  man  is  now  living 
who  will  live  to  see  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  people, 
free,  prosperous,  and  intelligent,  swaying  the  destinies  of  this 
country,  and  exerting  a  mighty  influence  upon  those  of  the 
world.  And  why  not,  Mr.  President?  Is  it  not  likely  to  be 
more  beneficially  exerted  than  the  influence  now  exercised  by 
the  despotic  powers  of  the  earth !  No  one  can  doubt  this.  Why, 
sir,  even  Vattel,  enlightened  as  he  was,  tells  us  that  "the  law 
of  nations  is  the  law  of  sovereigns.  It  is  principally  for  them 
and  for  their  ministers,  that  it  ought  to  be  written, "  etc.  The 
age  has  got  far  beyond  this  degrading  doctrine.  That  law  was 
made  for  the  great  civilized  community  of  the  world,  and  its 
obligations  and  their  violations  will  be  judged  by  this  high 
tribunal,  and  its  voice  will  become,  from  day  to  day,  louder  and 
more  efficacious.  Let  us  aid  it  by  the  expression  of  our  views, 
whenever  questions  arise  interesting  to  all  the  members  of  the 
great  commonwealth  of  nations.  There  are  no  considerations 
of  right  or  expediency  to  restrain  us  from  such  a  course;  for, 
as  I  have  shown,  we  are  just  as  free  to  act  or  forbear,  after 
such  a  declaration,  as  before.    But,  it  has  been  asked,  why  pro- 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  295 

claim  your  opinion  unless  you  mean  to  maintain  it  by  the  strong 
hand?  For  the  same  reason  that  countless  representations  and 
remonstrances  have  been  made  by  independent  powers  when 
they  had  reason  to  apprehend  the  adoption  of  measures  hostile 
to  the  just  principles  of  national  intercommunication.  To  mark 
their  disapprobation  of  the  act  and  of  the  doctrine,  that  their 
silence  might  not  be  construed  into  acquiescence,  and  that,  when, 
in  the  mutation  of  political  affairs,  the  proper  time  should  come 
they  might  interpose  effectually,  if  they  should  desire  it,  not 
concluded  by  the  success  of  violence  nor  by  the  lapse  of  time; 
that  the  power  itself,  contemplating  the  step,  might  pause 
and  review  its  position  and  its  pretensions  and  the  consequences 
to  which  it  might  be  led ;  not  knowing,  of  course,  what  measures 
might  follow  these  appeals  to  its  sense  of  right  should  they  fail 
to  be  effectual;  and,  above  all,  that  the  public  opinion  of  the 
world  should  be  rightly  instructed  and  brought  to  aid  these 
peaceful  efforts  to  preserve  the  rights  of  mankind. 

It  has  been  said,  in  condemnation  or  in  reproach  of  this 
effort,  that  there  are  many  other  suffering  people  and  violated 
principles  calling  equally  for  the  assertion  of  this  right,  and 
why,  it  is  asked  sneeringly,  if  not  triumphantly,  why  do  you 
not  extend  your  regards  and  your  action  to  all  such  cases? 
And  as  that  is  impossible  with  any  useful  result,  as  every  one 
knows,  we  are,  therefore,  to  sit  still  and  do  nothing  because  we 
cannot  do  everything.  Such  is  no  dictate  of  wisdom  or  duty, 
either  in  political  or  ethical  philosophy.  The  prudent  statesman 
looks  to  what  is  practicable,  as  well  as  what  is  right. 

Many  objections,  more  or  less  plausible,  have  been  presented 
to  deter  us  from  any  action  in  this  matter,  but  not  one  of  them 
with  more  confidence  of  pertinacity,  nor  with  less  regard  to 
the  true  circumstances  of  our  position,  than  that  which  warns 
us  that  by  such  a  proceeding  we  should  violate  alike  the  tradi- 
tions of  our  policy  and  the  advice  of  our  wisest  statesmen,  and 
especially  the  injunctions  of  Washington  and  Jefferson.  Never 
were  just  recommendations  more  inappropriately  applied  than 
in  this  attempt  to  apply  the  views  of  those  great  men  to  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  we  are  placed. 

Non-intervention,  it  is  said,  was  the  policy  they  maintained 
and  the  legacy  they  bequeathed  to  us;  but  is  it  possible  that  a 
single  American  can  be  found  who  believes  that  either  of  those 
patriots  would  condemn  the  declaration  of  his  country 's  opinion 
upon  a  great  question  of  public  law  because  they  condemned 
its  interference  with  the  affairs  of  other  nations?  Why,  this  is 
our  affair,  sir;  an  affair  as  interesting  to  us  as  to  any  other 


296  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

community  on  the  face  of  the  globe;  one  which  involves  the 
safety  of  independent  states,  and  the  true  intent  and  obligation 
of  the  code  that  regulates  their  intercourse. 

What  did  Washington  say  on  this  subject?  These  are  his 
words : 

"It  is  our  true  policy  to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances 
with  any  portion  of  the  foreign  world. '  * 

"Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  our- 
selves by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  [Euro- 
pean] politics,  or  the  ordinary  circumstances  or  collisions  of  her 
friendships  and  enmities/ ' 

These  sentiments  speak  for  themselves  and  are  commended 
no  less  by  the  authority  that  uttered  them  than  by  their  own 
justice  to  the  American  people.  Ingenuity  itself  cannot  torture 
them  into  the  service  of  the  opposition  to  the  present  proposition, 
one  which  seeks  no  " alliances' '  and  asks  for  no  "artificial  ties." 
It  limits  itself  to  a  simple  declaration  of  opinion. 

And  the  authority  of  Mr.  Jefferson  has  been  invoked  with 
as  little  reason  in  condemnation  of  this  measure.  ' '  Peace, ' '  said 
that  Patriarch  of  the  Democratic  faith,  "Peace,  commerce,  and 
honest  friendship  with  all  nations;  entangling  alliances  with 
none."  Why,  sir,  there  is  no  room  for  argument  between  the 
man  who  gives  to  this  language  of  Mr.  Jefferson  its  true  and 
natural  import  and  him  who  applies  it  to  the  assertion  of  a 
great  national  right.  They  have  no  common  ground  to  stand 
upon.  When  the  declaration  of  an  important  principle,  common 
to  all  nations  and  made  in  connection  with  none,  is  shown  to 
be  an  entangling  alliance  with  one  of  them,  then  may  this  senti- 
ment be  appealed  to  and  the  people  warned  against  its  viola- 
tion. 

Mr.  President,  the  wonderful  advance  of  skill  and  science 
has  brought  Europe  nearer  to  us  now  than  was  Savannah  to 
Philadelphia  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  And  similar 
causes  are  probably  destined  yet  more  to  diminish  the  distance ; 
and  the  increase  of  the  moral  and  material  interchange  conse- 
quent upon  the  progress  of  the  age  has  not  been  less  remarkable 
than  the  increase  in  the  facilities  of  intercourse.  We  cannot  be 
insensible  to  the  onward  march  of  events  in  the  old  hemisphere, 
nor  indifferent  to  their  operation  upon  the  great  mass  of  the 
people.  Undoubtedly  Europe,  to  some  extent,  has  peculiar  in- 
terests and  a  peculiar  policy,  with  which  we  have  no  concern. 
Dynastic  laws,  the  balance  of  power,  the  influence  claimed  by 
five  great  states — these  and  other  maxims  of  policy  give  rise 
to  questions  with  which  we  have  no  desire  to  intermeddle.    But, 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  297 

besides  these,  there  are  great  principles  of  the  laws  of  national 
intercommunication  often  coming  up  for  discussion  and  decision 
in  Europe,  and  which  affect  the  interest  and  the  safety  of  all 
the  independent  states  of  the  world.  The  former  we  may  regard 
merely  with  the  natural  interest  which  is  felt  in  passing  events ; 
but  the  latter  we  should  watch  with  sleepless  vigilance,  taking 
care  that  no  innovation  be  established  in  the  public  laws  without 
our  consent,  to  which  we  should  be  called  upon  to  submit  here- 
after on  the  ground  of  its  having  been  sanctioned  by  time  and 
acquiescence ;  as  the  right  to  search  our  vessels  would  have  been 
established  had  we  not  resisted  the  claim  at  its  very  inception. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  often  been  said  that  we  have  a  mission 
to  fulfill,  and  so,  indeed,  has  every  nation ;  and  the  first  mission 
of  each  is  to  conduct  its  own  affairs  honestly  and  fairly,  for  its 
own  benefit;  but  after  that  its  position  and  institutions  may 
give  to  it  peculiar  influence  in  the  prevailing  moral  and  political 
controversies  of  the  world  which  it  is  bound  to  exert  for  the 
welfare  of  all.  While  we  disclaim  any  crusading  spirit  against 
the  political  institutions  of  other  countries,  we  may  well  regard 
with  deep  interest  the  struggling  efforts  of  the  oppressed  through 
the  world,  and  deplore  their  defeat,  and  rejoice  in  their  success. 
And  can  any  one  doubt  that  the  evidences  of  sympathy  which 
are  borne  to  Europe  from  this  great  Republic  will  cheer  the 
hearts,  even  when  they  do  not  aid  the  purposes,  of  the  down- 
trodden masses  to  raise  themselves,  if  not  to  power,  at  least  to 
protection?  Whatever  duties  may  be  ultimately  imposed  on  us 
by  that  dark  future  which  overshadows  Europe,  and  which  we 
cannot  foresee,  and  ought  not  to  undertake  to  define,  circum- 
stances point  out  our  present  policy,  while  at  the  same  time 
they  call  upon  us  to  exert  our  moral  influence  in  support  of  the 
existing  principles  of  public  law,  placed  in  danger  not  merely 
by  the  ambition  but  still  more  by  the  fear  of  powerful  mon- 
archs — the  fear  lest  the  contagion  of  liberty  should  spread  over 
their  dominions,  carrying  destruction  to  the  established  systems 
of  oppression. 

Our  present  duty  and  policy  are  to  place  our  views  upon 
record,  thus  avoiding  conclusions  against  us  and  reserving  all 
our  rights  and  all  our  remedies,  whatever  these  may  be,  for 
future  consideration,  when  the  proper  exigency  may  arise. 

Senator  Seward. — If  war  is  to  follow  this  protest,  then  it 
must  come  in  some  way,  and  by  the  act  of  either  ourselves  or 
our  enemy.  But  the  protest  is  not  a  declaration,  nor  a  menace, 
nor  even  a  pledge  of  war  in  any  contingency.  War,  then,  will 
not  come  in  that  way,  nor  by  or  in  consequence  of  our  act.    If 


298  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

war  is  nevertheless  to  come,  it  must  come  in  retaliation  of  the 
protest,  and  by  the  act  of  Russia,  or  of  Austria,  or  of  both. 
Assume,  now,  that  it  shall  so  come,  will  it  be  just?  The  pro- 
test is  a  remonstrance  addressed  to  the  conscience  of  Russia,  and, 
passing  beyond  her,  carries  an  appeal  to  the  reason  and  justice 
of  mankind.  As  by  the  municipal  law  no  remonstrance  or  com- 
plaint justifies  a  blow,  so  by  the  law  of  nations  no  remonstrance 
or  complaint  justifies  war.  The  war  then  would  be  unjust,  and 
so  the  protest  would  be  not  a  cause,  but  a  pretext.  But  a  na- 
tion that  will  declare  war  on  a  pretext  will  either  fabricate  one 
or  declare  war  without  any. 

And  now,  honorable  Senators,  I  ask,  if  we  are  to  shrink  from 
this  duty  through  fear  of  unjust  retaliation,  what  duty  shall  we 
not  shrink  from  under  the  same  motive?  And  what  will  be 
the  principle  of  our  policy  when  thus  shrinking  from  obliga- 
tions but  fear  instead  of  duty? 

And  who  are  we,  and  who  are  Austria  and  Russia,  that  we 
should  fear  them  when  on  the  defence  against  an  unjust  war? 
I  admit,  and  I  hope  all  my  countrymen  will  learn  it  without  a 
trial,  that  we  are  not  constituted  for  maintaining  long,  distant 
wars  of  conquest  or  of  aggression.  But,  in  a  defensive  war  lev- 
ied against  us  on  such  a  pretext,  the  reason  and  the  sympathies 
of  mankind  would  be  on  our  side,  cooperating  with  our  own  in- 
stincts of  patriotism  and  self-preservation.  Our  enemies  would 
be  powerless  to  harm  us,  and  we  should  be  unconquerable. 

Why,  then,  I  ask,  shall  we  refrain  from  the  protest?  The 
answer  comes  up  on  all  sides:  Since,  then,  the  measure  is  pa- 
cific, Russia  will  disregard  it,  and  so  it  will  be  useless.  Well, 
what  if  it  should  ?  It  will  at  least  be  harmless.  But  Russia  will 
not  disregard  it.  It  is  true  that  we  once  interpleaded  between 
the  belligerents  of  Europe  twenty-five  years  by  protests  and 
remonstrances  in  defence  of  our  neutral  rights,  and  vindicated 
them  at  last  by  resistance  against  one  party,  and  open,  direct 
war  against  the  other.  But  all  that  is  changed  now.  Our  flag 
was  then  a  stranger  on  the  seas;  our  principles  were  then  un- 
known. Now,  both  are  regarded  with  respect  and  affection  by 
the  people  of  Europe.  And  that  people,  too,  are  changed.  They 
are  no  longer  debased  and  hopeless  of  freedom,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  waiting  impatiently  for  it,  and  ready  to  second  our 
expressions  of  interest  in  their  cause.  The  British  nation  is  not 
without  jealousy  of  us.  Let  us  only  speak  out.  Do  you  think 
that  they  would  be  silent  ?  No,  sir.  And  when  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  should  once  speak,  the  ever-fraternizing  bay- 
onets of  the  army  of  France,  if  need  were,  would  open  a  mouth 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  299 

for  the  voice  of  that  impulsive  and  generous  nation.  Who  be- 
lieves that  Russia,  despotic  as  she  is,  would  brave  the  remon- 
strances of  these  three  great  powers,  sustained  as  they  would 
be  by  the  voice  of  Christendom?  Sir,  I  do  not  know  that  this 
protest  will  do  Hungary  or  European  democracy  any  good.  It 
is  enough  for  me  that,  like  our  first  of  orators  (Mr.  Webster)  in 
a  similar  case,  I  can  say,  "I  hope  it  may." 

And  now,  sir,  why  must  we  go  to  war  to  sustain  our  protest  ? 
You  may  say,  because  we  should  be  dishonored  by  abandoning 
an  interest  so  solemnly  asserted.  Sir,  those  who  oppose  the  pro- 
test are  willing  to  forsake  the  cause  of  Hungary  now.  Will  it  be 
more  dishonorable  to  relinquish  it  after  an  earnest  effort  than 
to  abandon  it  without  any  effort  at  all  in  its  behalf?  Sir,  if  it 
be  mere  honor  that  is  then  to  prick  us  on,  let  the  timid  give  over 
their  fears.  A  really  great,  enlightened,  and  Christian  nation 
has  just  as  much  need  to  make  war  on  a  false  point  of  honor  as 
a  really  great,  enlightened,  and  Christian  man  has  need  to  en- 
gage in  a  personal  contest  in  the  same  case;  and  that  is  no 
necessity  at  all.  Nor  shall  we  be  reduced  to  the  alternative  of 
war.  If  Hungary  shall  never  rise,  there  will  be  no  casus  belli. 
If  she  shall  rise,  we  shall  have  right  to  choose  the  time  when  to 
recognize  her  as  a  nation.  That  recognition,  with  its  political  in- 
fluence and  commercial  benefits,  will  be  adequate  to  prevent  or 
counterbalance  Russian  intervention.  But  I  am  answered  that 
we  shall  unnecessarily  offend  powers  whom  it  is  unwise  to  pro- 
voke. I  reply  that  it  is  not  enough  for  a  nation  that  it  has  no 
enemies.  Japan  and  China  are  in  that  happy  condition.  It  is 
necessary  that  a  state  should  have  some  friends.  To  us,  ex- 
emption from  hatred  obtained  by  insensibility  to  crime  is  of  no 
value ;  still  less  is  the  security  obtained  by  selfishness  and  isola- 
tion. Only  generosity  ever  makes  friends,  and  those  that  it  does 
bring  are  grateful  and  enduring. 

There  remains  the  objection  that  flows  so  readily  from  all 
conservative  pens  and  tongues  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and 
still  more  freely  from  the  stipendiary  presses  of  Paris  and  Vi- 
enna, that  a  protest  would  be  a  departure  from  the  traditional 
policy  of  our  country  and  from  the  precepts  of  Washington.  It 
is  passing  strange,  sir,  that  Louis  Napoleon  and  Francis  Jo- 
seph should  take  so  deep  an  interest  in  our  adherence  to  our 
principles,  and  in  our  reverence  of  the  memory  of  him  who  in- 
culcated them,  not  for  the  immunity  of  tyrants,  but  for  the 
security  of  our  own  welfare. 

Sir,  granting  for  a  moment  that  Washington  inculcated  just 
such  a  policy  as  is  claimed  by  my  opponents,  is  it  so  entirely 


300  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

certain  that  it  ought  always  and  under  all  circumstances  to  be 
pursued?  Here  is  a  message  of  his  in  1792  that  illustrates  the 
policy  be  adopted  toward,  not  one  only,  but  all  the  Barbary 
Powers,  and  it  received,  I  think,  the  unanimous  and  favorable 
response  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Here  the  Senator  read  Washington's  proposition 
to  ransom  American  captives  in  Algiers,  and  pay  tribute 
to  the  Berber  Government. 

Sir,  you  and  I  and  all  of  us  would  have  answered  in  the 
affirmative  to  these  questions,  had  we  lived  and  occupied  these 
places  in  the  last  century.  I  desire  to  ascertain  how  many  votes 
such  a  treaty  would  receive  here  now  ?  And  I  address  myself  to 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  Clarke],  who 
moved  resolutions  against  any  departure  from  the  policy  of 
Washington.  Would  you,  sir,  pay  a  Barbary  pirate  $40,000  to 
ransom  thirteen  captives,  and  $25,000  bonus,  and  $25,000  an- 
nually, for  exemption  from  his  depredations.  He  looks  dissent- 
ingly.  I  demand  from  the  honorable  Senator  from  New  Jersey 
[Mr.  Stockton] ,  who  in  the  triple  character  of  Senator,  Commo- 
dore, and  General,  presided  at  the  Birthday  Congressional  Ban- 
quet in  honor  of  Washington,  and  dishonor  of  his  Hungarian 
disciple,  Kossuth,  would  you,  sir?  No,  not  he.  All  who  are  in 
favor  of  such  a  treaty,  let  them  say  aye.  What,  sir,  not  one  vote 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  the  continuance  of  what 
was  in  its  time  a  wise  and  prudent  as  well  as  humane  policy  of 
Washington  ?  No,  not  one.  And  why,  sir  ?  The  answer  is  easy : 
The  times  have  changed,  and  we  have  changed  with  them. 

I  will  not  venture  on  such  a  question  as  whether  humanity 
and  justice  may  not  in  some  contingencies  require  that  we 
should  afford  substantial  aid  to  nations  as  weak  as  we  were  in 
our  revolutionary  contest. 

It  is  clear  enough,  however,  that  we  distrust  our  strength 
seldom  except  when  such  diffidence  will  serve  as  a  plea  for  the 
non-performance  of  some  obligation  of  justice  or  of  humanity. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  to  press  such  inquiries.  What  is  de- 
manded here  is  not  any  part  of  our  fifty  millions  of  annual  reve- 
nue, nor  any  use  of  our  credit,  nor  any  employment  of  our 
Army  or  of  our  Navy,  but  simply  the  exercise  of  our  free  right 
of  speech.  If  we  are  not  strong  enough  now  to  speak,  when 
shall  we  be  stronger?  If  we  are  never  to  speak  out,  for  what 
were  national  lungs  given  us? 

Senators  and  Representatives  of  America,  if  I  may  borrow 


HUNGARIAN    AND    IRISH    PATRIOTS  301 

the  tone  of  that  sturdy  republican,  John  Milton,  I  would  have 
you  consider  what  nation  it  is  of  which  you  are  governors — a 
nation  quick  and  vigorous  of  thought,  free  and  bold  in  speech, 
prompt  and  resolute  in  action,  and  just  and  generous  in  pur- 
pose— a  nation  existing  for  something,  and  designed  for  some- 
thing more  than  indifference  and  inertness  in  times  of  universal 
speculation  and  activity.  Why  else  was  this  nation  chosen,  that 
"out  of  her,  as  out  of  Sinai,  should  be  proclaimed  and  sounded 
forth  the  first  tidings  and  trumpet"  of  political  reformation  to 
all  nations?  I  would  have  you  remember  that  the  love  of  lib- 
erty is  a  public  affection  which  this  nation  has  deeply  imbibed 
and  has  effectually  diffused  throughout  the  world ;  and  that  she 
cannot  now  suppress  it,  nor  smother  her  desires  to  promote  that 
glorious  cause,  for  it  is  her  own  cause. 

Let  others  employ  themselves  in  devising  new  ligaments  to 
bind  these  States  together.  For  myself,  I  am  content  with  the 
old  ones  just  as  I  find  them.  I  believe  that  the  Union  is  founded 
in  physical,  moral,  and  political  necessities,  which  demand  one 
Government  and  would  endure  no  divided  States.  I  believe, 
also,  that  it  is  righteousness,  not  greatness,  that  exalteth  a  na- 
tion, and  that  it  is  liberty,  not  repose,  that  renders  national  ex- 
istence worth  possessing. 

It  has  already  come  to  this,  that  whenever  in  any  country 
an  advocate  of  freedom,  by  the  changes  of  fortune,  is  driven  into 
exile,  he  hastens  to  seek  an  asylum  here ;  that  whenever  a  hero 
falls  in  the  cause  of  freedom  on  any  of  her  battlefields,  his  eyes 
involuntarily  turn  toward  us,  and  he  commits  that  cause  with 
a  confiding  trust  to  our  sympathy  and  our  care.  Never,  sir,  as 
we  value  the  security  of  our  own  freedom,  or  the  welfare  and 
happiness  of  mankind,  or  the  favor  of  Heaven  that  has  enabled 
us  to  protect  both,  let  that  exile  be  inhospitably  repulsed.  Never 
let  the  prayer  of  that  dying  hero  fall  on  ears  unused  to  hear, 
or  spend  itself  upon  hearts  that  refuse  to  be  moved. 


CHAPTER  XI 

"Fifty-Four  Forty  or  Fight" 
[The  Oregon  Boundary] 

Lewis  F.  Linn  [Mo.]  Introduces  in  Senate  Bill  to  Assert  Claims  to  the 
Territory  of  Oregon  Against  Great  Britain — Debate:  in  Favor,  Thomas 
H.  Benton  [Mo.],  Levi  Woodbury  [N.  H.] ;  Opposed,  John  C.  Calhoun 
[S.  C],  George  McDuffie  [S.  C] ;  Carried— Bill  Is  Eeported  Adversely 
in  the  House — Abortive  Negotiations  with  the  British  Minister — Presi- 
dent James  K.  Polk  Asserts  "Our  Title  to  the  Whole  of  Oregon' ' 
(54°  40') — Resolutions  to  This  Effect  Are  Introduced  in  the  Senate  by 
Edward  A.  Hannegan  [Ind.] — Debate:  in  Favor,  Hannegan,  William 
Allen  [O.],  Lewis  Cass  [Mich.],  Sydney  Breese  [111.];  Opposed,  John  C. 
Calhoun  [S.  C],  Thomas  H.  Benton  [Mo.],  John  J.  Crittenden  [Ky.], 
Daniel  Webster  [Mass.],  William  L.  Dayton  [N.  J.],  William  H.  Hay- 
wood [N.  C] — Charles  J.  Ingersoll  [Pa.]  Introduces  Resolutions  in  the 
House  to  Give  Notice  to  Great  Britain  Terminating  Joint  Occupancy  of 
Oregon — Debate:  in  Favor,  Henry  W.  Hilliard  [Ala.],  Howell  Cobb 
[Ga.],  Stephen  A.  Douglas  [111.];  Opposed,  William  L.  Yancey  [Ala.], 
Robert  M.  T.  Hunter  [Va.],  Jefferson  Davis  [Miss.] — New  Resolutions 
Are  Passed  Authorizing  the  President  to  Continue  Negotiations — Treaty 
Is  Signed  Fixing  the  Boundary  at  49°  N.  L. 

WHILE  a  treaty,  completed  with  Great  Britain  in 
August,  1842  (the  Webster-Ashburton  Treaty), 
had  fixed  the  northeastern  boundary  of  the 
United  States,  the  northwestern  boundary  remained  in 
dispute.  Several  thousand  Americans  had  permanently 
settled  in  the  Oregon  region,  entering  chiefly  into  the 
fur  trade,  and  there  arose  a  strong  patriotic  sentiment 
in  the  Northern  and  Western  States  to  secure  the  entire 
Pacific  region  northward  to  the  Eussian  occupation  (54 
degrees  and  forty  minutes  north  latitude).1  They 
viewed  with  anxiety  the  subsequent  encroachments  of 
the  Hudson  Bay  Company  in  introducing  British  immi- 

1  Senator  William  Allen  [O.]   coined  the  phrase,  "Fifty-four  Forty  or 
Fight,"  as  the  slogan  of  those  who  made  this  demand, 

302 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  303 

grants  into  the  region,  shepherds  and  farmers,  and  erect- 
ing forts  there,  pushing  southward  as  far  as  California, 
and  eastward  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  as  well  as  the 
decree  of  Parliament  which  extended  the  criminal  laws 
of  Great  Britain  to  the  very  confines  of  Arkansas  and 
Missouri. 

As  early  as  December  29,  1839,  Lewis  F.  Linn 
(Missouri)  had  introduced  in  the  Senate  resolutions  de- 
claring that  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  Terri- 
tory of  Oregon  was  indisputable  and  would  never  be 
abandoned;  that  the  laws  of  the  United  States  should 
be  extended  over  the  Territory;  that  regular  troops 
should  be  sent  there  for  the  protection  of  the  settlers 
against  the  Indians  and  any  foreign  force  which  might 
seize  the  country,  and  that  land  be  freely  offered  to 
settlers.  He  did  not  press  the  resolutions,  being  dis- 
suaded by  other  Congressmen  who  feared  that  the  nego- 
tiations with  Great  Britain  over  the  northeastern 
boundary  would  thereby  be  embarrassed.  Therefore 
they  did  not  come  up  for  discussion  until  January  9, 
1843. 

The  bill  was  passed  on  February  3  by  a  vote  of  24 
to  22.  The  chief  speakers  in  its  behalf  were  Thomas 
H.  Benton  (Missouri)  and  Levi  Woodbury  (New  Hamp- 
shire). Its  leading  opponents  were  John  C.  Calhoun 
(South  Carolina)  and  George  McDume  (South  Caro- 
lina). 

The  Oregon  Bill 

Senate,  January  9-February  3,  1843 

Senator  Benton. — British  interests  have  grown  up  on  the 
Columbia ;  and  the  British  Government  owes  protection  to  these 
interests,  and  will  give  it !  This  is  now  the  language  of  British 
ministers;  and  this  is  what  we  have  got  for  forty  years'  for- 
bearance to  assert  our  title !  The  nest-egg  laid  by  British  diplo- 
macy has  undergone  incubation,  and  has  hatched,  and  has  pro- 
duced a  full-grown  bird — a  game  cock — which  has  clapped  his 
wings  and  crowed  defiance  in  the  face  of  the  American  eagle! 
and  this  poor  eagle,  if  a  view  could  be  got  of  him  as  he  stood 
during  the  "informal  conferences"  between  Mr.  Webster  and 
Lord  Ashburton,  would  be  found  (no  doubt)  to  have  stuck  his 


304  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

head  under  his  wing,  and  hung  out  the  white  and  craven 
feather. 

British  interests  have  grown  up  on  both  sides  of  the  Colum- 
bia— to  the  south  as  well  as  to  the  north  of  the  river — and  it  is 
the  intention  of  the  British  Government  to  protect  the  whole. 
So  say  Mr.  Huskisson  and  Mr.  Addington.  But  this  is  diplo- 
macy— modern  diplomacy — equivalent  to  finesse.  The  south  of 
the  Columbia  has  not  been  seized  to  be  retained,  but  to  be  given 
up!  The  north  is  to  be  retained,  for  that  is  the  command- 
ing bank.  The  south  is  only  seized  to  be  given  up  as  an 
equivalent,  according  to  the  modern  system  of  compromis- 
ing so  successfully  introduced  in  the  case  of  Maine.  Seize 
all !  then  give  back  half !  call  this  a  compromise !  and  there  will 
be  people  (for  the  minds  of  men  are  various) — there  will  be 
people  to  applaud  the  fine  arrangement,  and  to  thank  God  for 
such  a  happy  deliverance  from  war.  No,  sir ;  no.  This  is  a  joke 
about  holding  on  to  the  south  bank.  The  settlements  made  there 
are  for  surrender,  not  for  retention.  They  are  made  there  to  be 
given  up  as  equivalents  for  what  is  taken  from  us  on  the  north ; 
and  thus  settle  the  Columbia  question  according  to  the  precedent 
of  Maine. 

But  the  settlements  on  the  north  bank — there  protection  is 
no  joke.  The  British  mean  to  hold  on  to  them,  for  they  com- 
mand the  remainder.  And,  after  the  experiment  which  the 
British  have  just  made  of  our  peace-loving  temper,  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  we  shall  get  out  of  this  scrape  without  seeing 
the  match  applied  to  the  priming,  or  having  the  cup  of  dishonor 
held  to  our  lips  until  we  drink  it  to  the  dregs. 

Senator  "Woodbury. — I  am  glad  to  find  that  there  is  not  a 
single  member  of  the  Senate  who  seems  to  entertain  the  slightest 
doubt  of  our  just  title  to  the  entire  territory.  All  contend  that 
our  right  to  all  we  claim  is  indefeasible.  Why,  then,  should 
there  be  any  hesitation  about  exercising  our  ownership  over  the 
territory  ? 

Our  citizens,  who  have  cast  their  fortunes  in  the  territory, 
claim  our  protection,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  grant  it.  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  United  States  to  protect  our  citizens  in  their  lawful 
pursuits  on  every  portion  of  our  territory,  no  matter  how  re- 
mote or  inconvenient  from  the  nucleus  of  Government.  It  is 
the  duty  of  Congress  to  extend  its  territorial  laws  for  the  benefit 
of  those  remotely  settled  citizens. 

Senator  Calhoun  opposed  the  bill  on  the  ground  that 
in  the  existing  "imbecile  condition  of  the  Government" 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  305 

it  would  be  impolitic  to  risk  war  with  so  great  a  naval 
power  as  Great  Britain  over  a  region  which  it  would  be 
almost  impossible  for  us  to  occupy  with  forces  sent  over- 
land. It  was  because  he  wished  to  retain  the  Territory 
that  he  advised  that  events  be  allowed  to  take  their 
natural  course. 

There  is  only  one  means  by  which  it  can  be  preserved,  but 
that,  fortunately,  is  the  most  powerful  of  all — time.  Time  is 
acting  for  us;  and,  if  we  shall  have  the  wisdom  to  trust  to  its 
operation,  it  will  assert  and  maintain  our  right  with  resistless, 
force,  without  costing  a  cent  of  money,  or  a  drop  of  blood. 
There  is  often,  in  the  affairs  of  government,  more  efficiency  and 
wisdom  in  non-action,  than  in  action.  All  we  want  to  effect  our 
object  in  this  case,  is  "a  wise  and  masterly  inactivity. ' '  Our 
population  is  rolling  toward  the  shores  of  the  Pacific,  with  an 
impetus  greater  than  we  realize.  As  the  region  west  of  Arkan- 
sas and  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  south  of  the  Missouri  River, 
is  occupied  by  half-civilized  tribes,  who  have  their  lands  secured 
to  them  by  treaty,  the  spread  of  population  is  prevented  in 
that  direction,  causing  this  great  and  increasing  tide  to  take  the 
comparatively  narrow  channel  to  the  north  of  that  river  and 
south  of  our  northern  boundary.  Some  conception  may  thus  be 
formed  of  the  strength  with  which  the  current  will  run  in  that 
direction,  and  how  soon  it  will  reach  the  eastern  gorges  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains.  I  say  some  conception;  for  I  feel  assured 
that  the  reality  will  outrun  the  anticipation. 

Senator  McDuffie. — What  do  we  want  with  this  territory? 
What  are  we  to  do  with  it?  What  is  to  be  the  consequence  of 
our  taking  possession  of  it?  What  is  the  act  we  are  called  on 
now  to  do?  Why,  it  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  act  of 
colonization,  for  the  first  time  proposed  since  the  foundation  of 
this  Government.  If  this  were  a  question  of  gradual,  and  con- 
tinuous, and  progressive  settlement — if  the  territory,  to  which 
our  citizens  are  invited,  were  really  to  become  a  part  of  this 
Union,  it  would  present  a  very  different  question.  But,  sir, 
does  any  man  seriously  suppose  that  any  State  which  can  be 
formed  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River,  or  any  of  the  in- 
habitable parts  of  that  territory,  would  ever  become  one  of 
the  States  of  this  Union?  I  have  great  faith  in  the  power  of 
the  representative  principle  to  extend  the  sphere  of  government ; 
but  I  confess  that,  even  in  the  most  sanguine  days  of  my  youth, 
I  never  conceived  the  possibility  of  embracing  within  the  same 
government  people  living  five  thousand  miles  apart.    But,  sir, 


306  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

the  worthy  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  (Mr.  Woodbury) 
seems  to  have  discovered  a  principle  much  more  potent  than  the 
representative  principle.  He  refers  you  to  steam,  as  far  more 
potent.  I  should  doubt  very  much  whether  the  elements,  or 
powers,  or  organization  of  the  principles  of  government,  will 
ever  be  changed  by  steam.  Steam !  How  are  we  to  apply  steam 
in  this  case?  Has  the  Senator  examined  the  character  of  the 
country?  What  is  the  character  of  the  country?  Why, 
about  seven  hundred  miles  this  side  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains is  uninhabitable,  where  rain  scarcely  ever  falls 
— a  barren  sandy  soil.1  On  the  other  side — we  have  it  from  a 
very  intelligent  gentleman,  sent  to  explore  that  country  by  the 
State  Department,  that  there  are  three  successive  ridges  of 
mountains  extending  toward  the  Pacific,  and  running  nearly 
parallel;  which  mountains  are  totally  impassable,  except  in 
certain  parts,  where  there  are  gaps  or  depressions,  to  be 
reached  only  by  going  some  hundred  of  miles  out  of  the  direct 
course.  Well,  now,  what  are  we  to  do  in  such  a  case  as  this? 
How  are  you  going  to  apply  steam?  Have  you  made  anything 
like  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  a  railroad  running  from  here 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia?  Why,  the  wealth  of  the  Indies 
would  be  insufficient.  You  would  have  to  tunnel  through  moun- 
tains five  or  six  hundred  miles  in  extent.2  It  is  true,  they  have 
constructed  a  tunnel  beneath  the  Thames ;  but  at  a  vast  expendi- 
ture of  capital.  With  a  bankrupt  treasury,  and  a  depressed 
and  suffering  people,  to  talk  about  constructing  a  railroad  to 
the  western  shore  of  this  continent  manifests  a  wild  spirit  of 
adventure  which  I  never  expected  to  hear  broached  in  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States.  And  is  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
to  be  the  last  intrenchment  where  we  are  to  find  this  wild  spirit 
of  adventure  which  has  involved  this  country  in  ruin?  I  be- 
lieve that  the  farmers,  the  honest  cultivators  of  the  soil,  look 
now  only  to  God,  in  His  mercy,  and  their  own  labor  to  relieve 
them  from  the  wretchedness  in  which  the  wild  and  visionary 
schemes  of  adventure  have  involved  them. 

The  bill  went  to  the  House,  where  it  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  The  committee 
on  February  16,  1843,  reported  against  its  adoption  and 
no  action  upon  it  was  taken  during  the  session. 

1  This  region  was  known  at  the  time  and  for  many  years  afterward  as 
'  *  The  Great  American  Desert. ' '  It  was  so  designated  in  the  school  geogra- 
phies. 

3  The  Senator  evidently  thought  that  the  tunneling  would  be  lengthwise 
under  the  ridges! 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  307 

Declaration  of  President  Polk 

Early  in  1844  Senator  Calhoun  was  appointed  Sec- 
retary of  State  by  President  Tyler.  From  July,  1844, 
until  January,  1845,  he  conducted  negotiations  in  the 
Oregon  Territory  with  the  British  minister,  Richard 
Pakenham,  but  these  proved  abortive,  Pakenham  de- 
manding as  the  boundary  the  line  of  49  degrees  north 
latitude  as  far  westward  as  the  crossing  of  the  Columbia 
river,  and,  from  this  point  onward,  the  river,  but  agree- 
ing to  have  the  question  arbitrated,  and  Calhoun,  while 
receding  from  the  contention  that  54  degrees  and  40 
minutes  north  latitude  was  the  proper  boundary,  insist- 
ing on  the  line  of  49  degrees  westward  from  its  crossing 
with  the  Columbia  river  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  refus- 
ing to  consider  arbitration. 

This  refusal,  followed,  as  it  shortly  was,  by  the  bold 
declaration,  in  his  inaugural  address,  of  President  Polk, 
that  "our  title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon"  was  indisputa- 
ble, and  must  be  maintained,  raised  a  strong  feeling  in 
Great  Britain  and  Canada  for  war  with  the  United 
States. 

It  was  clearly  seen  that  assertion  of  the  claim  of 
the  Territory  as  far  north  as  the  line  of  Russian  occupa- 
tion— 54  degrees  and  40  minutes  north  latitude — would 
precipitate  hostilities  with  the  greatest  naval  power  in 
the  world,  the  outcome  of  which  would  probably  be  the 
loss  of  the  territory  between  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia 
River  and  49  degrees  north  latitude,  if  not  of  all  the 
American  possessions  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

Accordingly,  after  consultation  with  Senator  Thomas 
H.  Benton,  the  Secretary  of  State,  James  Buchanan,  pro- 
posed to  the  British  Government  that  the  boundary  be 
fixed  at  49  degrees.  This  was  refused.  The  knowledge 
of  the  offer  leaked  out,  and  the  extremists  in  the  Demo- 
cratic party  were  greatly  incensed  at  this  recession  from 
the  claim  in  the  Democratic  platform  upon  which  the 
President  had  been  elected,  and  from  the  declaration 
of  his  inaugural  address.  To  appease  them,  Secretary 
Buchanan  formally  withdrew  his  offer,  and  in  his  annual 
message  on  December  27  1845,  the  President  again  as- 


308  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

serted  "our  title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon/ '  and  also 
advised  that  notice  be  given  to  Great  Britain  that  the 
United  States  would  terminate  the  joint  occupancy  of 
the  territory  agreed  upon  in  1827.  -+■ 

In  the  Senate  on  December  18  William  Allen  (Ohio) 
introduced  a  resolution  authorizing  the  President  to  give 
such  notice,  and  on  December  30  Edward  A.  Hannegan 
(Indiana)  introduced  resolutions  that  "the  whole' '  of 
Oregon  belonged  to  the  United  States;  that  there  was 
no  power  in  the  Government  to  alienate  any  part  of 
the  national  domain,  nor  to  transfer  to  another  govern- 
ment the  allegiance  of  its  citizens,  and  that  the  sur- 
render of  Oregon  in  particular  would  be  an  "abandon- 
ment of  the  honor,  character,  and  the  best  interests  of 
the  American  people. ' '  To  these  latter  resolutions  John 
C.  Calhoun  (South  Carolina)  opposed  others,  declaring 
that  the  President  and  Senate  had  the  constitutional 
power  to  make  treaties,  which  included  the  adjustment 
of  contested  boundaries,  and  accordingly  that  the  Presi- 
dent, in  proposing  the  line  of  49  degrees  north  latitude, 
did  not  exceed  his  power,  nor  "abandon  the  honor,  the 
character,  or  the  best  interests  of  the  American  people." 
In  the  interest  of  peace,  Calhoun  proposed  resumption 
of  negotiations  with  Great  Britain,  and  therefore  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  joint  occupancy  of  Oregon.  Senators 
Allen  and  Hannegan  then  urged  a  resolution  directing 
the  President  to  give  Great  Britain  the  twelve  months' 
notice  designated  in  the  convention  for  terminating  this 
occupancy. 

In  the  debate  which  ensued  leading  speakers  who 
demanded  that  there  be  no  recession  from  the  claim  of 
the  whole  of  the  territory  in  dispute,  and  who  therefore 
opposed  Senator  Calhoun's  motion  were  Hannegan, 
Allen,  Lewis  Cass  (Michigan)  and  Sydney  Breese 
(Illinois) ;  the  speakers  who  were  willing  to  compromise 
on  the  line  of  49  degrees  north  latitude  were  Calhoun, 
Thomas  H.  Benton  (Missouri),  John  J.  Crittenden 
(Kentucky),  Daniel  Webster  (Massachusetts),  William 
L.  Dayton  (New  Jersey)  and  William  H.  Haywood 
(North  Carolina). 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  309 

The  Oregon  Compromise 
Senate,  December  30,  1845-March  31,  1846 

Senator  Hannegan. — The  Senator  from  South  Carolina 
[Mr.  Calhoun]  will  not  deny  that  the  whole  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion has  been  changed  since  the  proposition  of  the  President, 
by  the  peremptory  and  almost  contemptuous  refusal  of  the 
British  minister.  If  it  were  not  so,  I  am  a  freeman  as  well 
as  the  President  of  the  United  States;  and  although  I  have 
ever  been  his  political  friend,  and  ever  expect  to  be  so,  yet,  if  the 
President  on  any  occasion  or  occasions  assume  a  position  which 
I  can  not  endorse,  I  have  the  right,  and  will  maintain  it — as 
well  here  as  at  home — to  express  my  sentiments  without  intend- 
ing, desiring,  or  wishing  to  convey  any  censure.  I  represent  the 
same  people  that  the  President  does,  and,  as  such  representative, 
I  have  a  right  to  express  my  views  on  all  questions  pertaining 
to  the  Government.  If  the  adoption  of  my  resolutions,  which 
contain  the  immutable  principles  of  truth,  shall  bring  war  on 
us,  let  war  come!  What  American  is  there  who,  through  fear 
of  war,  would  hesitate  to  declare  the  truth  in  this  Chamber? 

There  has  been  a  singular  course  pursued  on  this  Oregon 
question  contrasting  strangely  with  a  precisely  similar  question 
— the  annexation  of  Texas.  Texas  and  Oregon  were  born  the 
same  instant,  nursed  and  cradled  in  the  same  cradle — thetBalti- 
more  Convention — and  they  were  at  the  same  instant  adopted 
by  the  democracy  throughout  the  land.  There  was  not  a  mo- 
ment's hesitation,  until  Texas  was  admitted,  but,  the  moment 
she  was  admitted,  the  peculiar  friends  of  Texas  turned,  and 
were  doing  all  they  could  to  strangle  Oregon !  But  th#  country 
were  not  blind  or  deaf.  The  people  see,  they  comprehend,  and 
I  trust  they  will  speak.  It  is  a  most  singular  state  of  things. 
We  were  told  that  we  must  be  careful  not  to  involve  ourselves 
in  a  war  with  England  on  a  question  of  disputed  boundary. 
There  was  a  question  of  disputed  boundary  between  us  and 
Mexico ;  but  did  we  hear,  from  the  same  quarter,  any  warnings 
against  a  collision  with  Mexico  when  we  were  about  to  con- 
summate the  annexation  of  Texas? 

Senator  Hannegan  closed  by  saying  that  he  never 
would  consent  to  a  surrender  of  any  portion  of  the 
country  north  of  49  degrees,  nor  one  foot  by  treaty  or 
otherwise  under  the  line  of  54  degrees  40  minutes  north 
latitude. 


310  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Senator  Calhoun. — The  Senator  from  Indiana  [Mr.  Han- 
negan]  has  endeavored  to  draw  a  contrast  between  my  course 
upon  the  Texas  question  and  his  course  upon  this.  The  views 
which  governed  me  upon  that  question  govern  me  also  upon 
this.  I  pursued  in  reference  to  Texas  what  I  conceived  to  be 
the  best  course.  If  I  acted  boldly  and  promptly  on  that  occa- 
sion, it  was  because  boldness  and  promptness  were  necessary  to 
success.  It  was  the  golden  opportunity;  and  one  year's  delay 
would  have  lost  Texas  to  us  forever.  If  I  am  for  more  deliber- 
ate measures  on  this  occasion,  it  is  not  because  I  am  not  a  friend 
to  Oregon.  I  believe  that  precipitancy  will  lose  you  Oregon 
forever — no,  not  forever;  but  it  will  lose  you  Oregon  in  the 
first  struggle,  and  then  it  will  require  another  struggle  here- 
after, when  we  become  stronger,  to  regain  it. 

If  you  institute  a  comparison  between  Oregon  and  Texas, 
I  would  say  that  the  former  is  as  valuable  to  us  as  the  latter, 
and  I  would  as  manfully  defend  it.  If  the  Senator  and  myself 
disagree,  we  disagree  only  as  to  the  means  of  securing  Oregon 
and  not  as  to  its  importance.  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  Senator 
intends  to  reflect  upon  the  President ;  but  there  can  be  no  dif- 
ference, as  far  as  the  principle  involved  in  this  question  is  con- 
cerned, between  the  circumstances  when  the  proposition  for  a 
division  at  the  forty-ninth  parallel  was  made  and  now.  It  was 
as  sensible  then  to  make  the  offer  as  it  would  be  now. 

Senator  Allen. — In  the  assertion  of  her  claims,  Great 
Britain  has  not  been  influenced  so  much  by  her  actual  right  to 
what  she  claims  as  by  her  own  imaginary  superiority  over  us  in 
strength.  And  this  view  has  entered  into  the  arguments  of  those 
among  ourselves  who  are  opposed  to  a  proper  vindication  of 
our  rights;  who  maintain  that  we  ought  to  surrender  them 
because  we  are  not  in  a  condition  to  resist  the  power  of  Great 
Britain,  and  because,  owing  to  her  vast  superiority,  she  will 
obtain  what  she  claims  at  the  point  of  the  sword.  We  are  there- 
fore not  only  compelled  to  receive  the  tone  of  our  thoughts 
and  feelings  from  her  but  also  her  mandates.  All  this  was  made 
well  understood  in  England;  and,  in  all  the  Parliamentary 
speeches,  we  never  heard  of  any  one  who  asserted  that  she  is 
not  able  to  carry  her  purposes  through,  or  that  her  power  is 
even  likely  to  be  weakened  in  a  contest  with  our  Democracy.  No 
one  there  urged  timid  counsels  in  order  to  paralyze  her  arm. 
She  tells  us  that  she  has  rights  in  Oregon  which  she  will  cause 
to  be  respected ;  and  that  if  we  adopt  certain  measures  she  will 
consider  the  act  as  cause  of  war.  There  is  no  crouching  there, 
by  declarations  that  she  is  not  prepared.     Had  it  been  with 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  311 

Mexico  instead  of  Great  Britain  that  we  had  had  to  deal,  we 
should  have  given  this  notice  and  been  in  possession  of  the  ter- 
ritory fifteen  years  ago. 

Great  Britain  will  calculate  the  effect  of  the  measure  on  her 
own  interests,  and,  if  she  finds  they  are  not  likely  to  be  benefited, 
she  will  find  a  way  to  evade  a  contest.  She  has  colonies  which 
she  cannot  afford  to  lose,  while  our  possessions  lie  contiguous, 
and  are  confined  to  our  soil.  And  even  could  she  obtain  Oregon, 
she  would  not  be  able  to  retain  it  twenty-five  years  before  it 
would  be  reached  and  occupied  by  an  advancing  population 
which  is  doubling  every  few  years.  The  first  act  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, in  case  of  war,  would  be  to  expel  the  British  power 
from  all  her  possessions  on  this  continent.  Knowing  this,  she 
will  count  the  cost  before  she  goes  into  a  war.  Before  she  could 
assail  us,  she  would  have  to  cross  three  thousand  miles  of  the 
Atlantic.  All  the  armed  navies  she  could  collect  could  not  sub- 
jugate this  country. 

Of  all  the  five  allied  Powers  of  Europe,  England  is  the  weak- 
est.   A  single  defeat  ensures  her  fall. 

During  the  wars  of  the  close  of  the  last  century  she  was 
compelled  to  incur  her  heavy  debt  in  order  to  pay  the  foreign 
navies  which  she  subsidized,  taxing  her  people  to  the  amount 
of  sixty-five  millions  of  pounds  annually  for  twelve  years.  And 
noth withstanding  she  has  enjoyed  thirty  years  of  peace,  this 
enormous  debt  still  remains  unreduced,  and  her  taxes  amount 
now  to  fifty-two  millions  of  pounds  per  annum — little  less  than 
when  she  had  all  the  navies  of  Europe  in  her  pay.  She  is  at 
this  moment  a  pauper ;  for  in  one  year,  when  her  taxes  amounted 
to  fifty-two  millions,  the  total  value  of  her  exports  reached  only 
fifty-one  millions.  Yet  in  this  condition  of  weakness  and  pov- 
erty she  is  held  up  to  us  as  a  power  from  which  we  are  to  turn 
and  run.  Our  Government  is  strong  enough  for  all  the  purposes 
of  our  destiny,  and  nothing  is  required  but  to  expel  the  delusion 
which  has  been  thrown  about  the  public  mind  as  to  the  power 
of  Great  Britain.  All  we  have  to  do  is,  to  do  as  her  statesmen 
do — not  to  depreciate  our  own  power  while  we  exaggerate  hers. 

We  have  existed  more  than  half  a  century,  unstained  by 
the  blood  of  a  single  individual  for  political  offences.  With 
twenty  millions  of  people,  powerful  enough  to  do  wrong,  and 
five  thousand  prisons,  there  is  not  one  of  these  twenty  millions 
incarcerated  in  one  of  these  prisons  on  any  political  charge.  A 
short  time  since  there  was  one  imprisoned  for  a  political  of- 
fence,1 but  so  strong  was  the  force  of  public  sympathy  in  his 
1  William  Lloyd  Garrison. 


312  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

favor  that  even  they  who  imprisoned  him  opened  the  prison 
doors  and  invited  and  urged  and  coaxed  him  to  accept  of  his 
liberty.  Throughout  the  remoter  sections  of  our  country,  a 
magistrate  is  mounted  on  his  horse,  travels  to  a  distant  court- 
house, holds  his  court,  pronounces  judgment,  and  secures  the 
execution  without  the  aid  of  a  sword  or  even  a  cudgel.  And 
this  because  the  hearts  of  the  people  vindicate  the  supremacy  of 
the  laws.  It  is  thus  that  we  possess  all  the  elements  of  the 
strongest  government  by  which  mankind  was  ever  banded  to- 
gether.   We  then  can  have  no  fears  of  Great  Britain. 

All  this  arises  from  the  fact  that,  instead  of  being  in  the 
rear  of  our  institutions,  the  people  are  always  in  advance  of 
those  who  are  in  power.  The  people  have  no  fears  of  Great 
Britain;  and  if  in  our  national  councils  is  to  be  found  some- 
thing like  timidity,  it  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  delegated  power 
is  always  more  fearful  of  responsibility  than  that  which  is  primi- 
tive. It  is  the  policy  of  Great  Britain  boldly  to  assert  a  claim, 
and  then,  by  giving  us  the  alternative  of  yielding  or  fighting, 
to  obtain  the  surrender  of  a  part  of  it.  It  is  our  duty  to  exhibit 
no  symptoms  of  quailing  to  Great  Britain,  but  to  treat  her  as 
she  has  treated  us.  When  she  talks  of  power,  let  us  talk  back  to 
her  of  power.  When  she  strips  for  a  fight,  let  us  strip.  With 
the  bravest  people  in  the  world,  what  cause  have  we  for  fear? 
Let  this  resolution  pass — and  I  know  this  body  well  enough  to 
be  sure  that  it  will  pass  easily,  and  that  all  the  other  measures 
to  which  it  will  lead  will  also  pass — and  we  shall  hear  no  more 
of  war. 

Senator  Benton  spoke  against  the  continuance  of  the 
joint-use  convention. 

Abram  and  Lot,  although  they  were  brethren,  and  sent  to 
the  chosen  spot  by  the  Deity  himself,  could  not  live  together 
in  the  wilderness  without  strife.  They  had  to  separate  to 
avoid  contention.  It  must  be  so  with  the  British  and  Ameri- 
cans on  the  Columbia,  and  worse.  The  two  people  can  neither 
live  together  without  law  and  government  nor  with  double 
law  and  government.  The  condition  is  impossible.  Collisions, 
violence,  bloodshed  must  ensue  if  we  leave  the  people  as  they 
are.  It  is  our  duty  to  prevent  these  mischiefs,  and  we  become 
responsible  for  all  that  may  happen  if  we  do  not  prevent  them. 

The  first  step  is  to  terminate  the  joint  convention,  and  to 
recover  our  right  to  the  complete  possession  of  the  Columbia 
under  the  Ghent  treaty.     We  have  a  right  to  the  possession 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  313 

of  that  river  and  its  valley  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  We  hold 
a  treaty  with  the  British  for  our  right  of  possession,  and  we 
have  the  amplest  admission  of  a  British  minister,  Lord  Castle- 
reagh,  of  our  right  to  be  the  party  in  possession  while  treating 
of  the  title,  and  until  the  title  is  decided.  Let  us  resume  these 
great  rights,  so  improvidently  lost  for  thirty  years  by  the  de- 
lusive convention  of  1818.  The  notice  is  necessary  to  this  re- 
sumption, and  I  rejoice  that  the  moment  is  at  hand  for  giving  it. 

The  notice  is  a  peace  measure,  and  can  operate  no  way  but 
beneficially.  It  will  give  us  the  immediate  and  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  one-half  the  contested  country,  with  the  right  of  pos- 
session until  the  title  to  the  whole  is  decided.  This  will  separate 
the  people,  and  keep  peace  among  them,  and  will  bring  to  con- 
clusion this  aged  and  barren  negotiation  which  has  produced 
no  fruit  in  thirty  years.  It  will  change  the  condition  of  parties 
and  make  the  British  themselves  desire  negotiation.  As  long 
as  things  remain  as  they  are,  they  are  content.  They  have  the 
exclusive  possession  of  three-fourths  of  the  country,  and  the 
joint  use  of  the  remaining  fourth :  this  is  all  they  ask,  and  more 
than  they  ask,  in  the  way  of  territory.  They  have  the  free 
use  of  the  river  and  its  harbor,  for  the  export  of  their  furs 
and  the  importation  of  goods  from  Europe  and  Asia,  without 
paying  of  duties :  this  is  all  they  could  ask  in  the  way  of  navi- 
gation. They  have  law  for  the  government  of  their  people :  we 
have  none.  And,  more  than  all,  they  have  an  excuse  for  not  com- 
plying with  the  Ghent  treaty — an  excuse  which  must  fail  them 
as  soon  as  the  notice  takes  effect,  and  leave  them  under  the 
necessity  of  evacuating  the  country  or  violating  a  treaty  for 
the  execution  of  which  we  hold  their  order.  As  things  are,  the 
British  are  content.  They  want  no  change.  The  joint  conven- 
tion, while  it  stands,  gives  them  all  they  ask,  and  more  too. 
They  fear  its  termination:  they  fear  the  notice!  But  they  are 
not  going  to  make  war  for  the  notice.  It  will  make  them  treat, 
not  fight. 

Senator  Crittenden. — They  who  should  involve  this  coun- 
try in  a  needless  war  will  bear  responsibility  heavy  enough  to 
sink  a  navy,  sir.  Let  them  be  warned.  To  defend  the  rights 
of  their  country  is  one  great  duty.  To  protect  the  interests  of 
their  country  is  their  duty;  and  of  those  interests  peace  is  the 
greatest  and  mightiest  of  all.  These  duties  are  not  inconsistent. 
It  is  no  vaunting  spirit  that  is  to  be  acted  on  here.  No  fanati- 
cism in  politics  must  be  suffered  to  guide  the  counsels  of  a 
great  nation  upon  so  solemn  and  serious  a  question.  Consid- 
erations of  a  much  more  profound,  of  a  higher  and  nobler  char- 


314  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

acter  should  influence  those  who  are  intrusted  with  a  nation's 
destiny.  No  hasty  conclusions  between  individual  negotiators; 
no  little  pouting  and  fretting,  or  strutting  upon  the  stage,  can 
be  any  justification  to  the  American  people,  or  before  the  world 
at  large,  that  out  of  these  cabinet  squabbles  or  diplomatic  quar- 
rels two  nations  and  the  world  shall  be  set  to  war  and  to  cut 
each  other's  throats.  A  great  majority  of  the  Senate  is  anxious 
— we  are  all  anxious  for  peace.  A  majority  is  decidedly  in 
favor  of  preserving  the  peace  of  the  country  honorably,  and 
of  settling  this  question  peaceably  and  honorably,  by  com- 
promise, negotiation,  arbitration,  or  by  some  other  mode  known 
and  recognized  among  nations  as  a  suitable  and  proper  and 
honorable  mode  of  settling  national  questions. 

Senator  Webster. — The  President  can  expect  nothing  but 
a  continuance  of  this  dispute  or  its  settlement  by  negotiation. 
I  am  bound  to  suppose  that  he  expects  its  settlement  by  negotia- 
tion. What  terms  of  negotiation?  What  basis  of  negotiation? 
What  grounds  of  negotiation?  Every  thing  that  we  hear  from 
the  Executive  department  is  "the  whole  or  none";  and  yet 
negotiation!  Sir,  it  is  in  vain  to  conceal  from  ourselves,  from 
the  country,  or  from  the  world,  the  gross  inconsistency  of  this 
course  of  conduct.  I  say  I  do  not  understand  the  position  in 
which  the  Executive  Government  has  placed  itself:  in  favor 
of  negotiation  all  the  time;  but  all  the  time  refusing  to  take 
any  thing  less  than  the  whole!  What  consideration — what 
compromise — what  basis — what  grounds,  therefore,  for  nego- 
tiation? If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  made 
up  its  mind — I  speak  of  the  Executive  Government — that,  so 
far  as  it  is  concerned,  it  will  not  treat  for  anything  less  than 
the  whole  of  Oregon,  then  it  should  say  so,  and  throw  itself 
on  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  and  on  the  country. 

If  we  will  not  recede,  and  England  will  not  give  up  the 
whole  of  her  claims,  what  is  more  natural  than  that  war  is  likely 
to  happen? 

I  am  desirous  of  expressing  my  judgment  on  this  subject, 
whenever  I  can  do  so  without  embarrassing  the  Administration. 
If  negotiations  be  pending,  I  wish  to  hold  my  tongue.  It  shall 
be  blistered  before  I  would  say  anything  derogatory  to  the  title 
of  the  United  States  while  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
was  engaged  in  negotiating  for  that  territory  on  the  strength 
of  our  title.  Gentlemen  see  the  embarrassment  in  which  we 
stand.  I  will  aid  the  Administration  in  all  honorable  efforts  to 
obtain  all  that  belongs  to  us,  and  all  that  we  can  rightfully  and 
honorably  acquire  with  all  my  heart — with  all  my  heart.    But, 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  315 

then,  as  a  citizen  of  the  country,  I  claim  a  right  to  know  some- 
thing of  the  views,  purposes,  expectations,  and  objects  of  the 
Administration.  I  cannot  reconcile  myself  to  be  much  longer 
kept  in  a  posture  of  things  in  which  no  preparations  are  made  to 
defend  the  country — in  which  negotiation  is  held  out  every  day 
as  that  course  of  proceeding  which  is  expected  to  bring  the 
question  to  a  settlement,  and  to  settle  the  question  by  England 
giving  up  the  whole  matter  in  dispute.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  not 
the  judgment  of  this  country  that,  at  the  hazard  of  a  war,  we 
shall  now  reject  as  no  longer  proper  for  our  consideration  prop- 
ositions made  and  repeated  twenty  years  ago.  Compromise  I 
can  understand — arbitration  I  can  comprehend — but  negotia- 
tion, with  a  resolution  to  take  and  not  to  give — negotiation,  with 
a  resolution  not  to  settle  unless  we  obtain  the  whole  of  our  de- 
mands, is  what  I  do  not  comprehend  in  diplomacy  or  matters 
of  government. 

Senator  Cass  opposed  reopening  negotiations  with 
Great  Britain. 

Mr.  President,  what  right  have  you  to  suppose  that  the 
British  government,  under  any  circumstances,  will  be  influenced 
in  their  conduct  by  your  offer  to  compromise?  I  do  not  say 
they  will  not;  but,  without  retracing  their  steps  before  the 
world,  without  gainsaying  much  they  have  said,  without  re- 
linquishing much  that  they  have  claimed,  without  abandoning 
much  that  they  have  demanded,  without  retracing  their  steps 
before  the  world,  and  doing  what  a  proud  nation  does  with  great 
reluctance,  I  cannot  see  how  the  difficulty  is  to  be  avoided. 

Senator  Breese  belittled  the  power  of  Great  Britain 
and  prophesied  that  in  the  event  of  war  with  her  our 
damage  would  be  limited  to  the  loss  of  a  few  merchant 
ships. 

The  Senator  from  New  Jersey  replied  to  him : 

Senator  Dayton. — The  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Breese] 
takes  no  account  of  the  oceans  of  blood  to  be  spilled  in 
case  of  a  war  in  this  controversy;  he  takes  no  ac- 
count of  the  wretchedness  in  every  form  which  is  to  tread 
in  the  track  of  this  war;  he  makes  no  account  of  the 
taxes  that  will  harass  the  people;  he  forgets  the  fact  that  war 
has  retrograded  the  position  of  the  world;  that  it  would  stop 
at  one  blow  all  our  internal  improvements ;  diminish  the  wealth 


316  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

and  cripple  the  resources  of  the  country;  he  forgets  that  it  is 
peace  that  makes  our  railroads,  peoples  our  hill-sides,  and  plows 
our  prairies.  He  takes  no  account  of  all  this.  He  thinks,  upon 
a  point  like  this,  when  all  are  united  and  so  very  desirous  for 
54°  40',  if  we  only  wake  up  we  will  astonish  ourselves!  Why, 
if  such  language  as  this  were  to  come  from  some  persons  who 
stood  backside  of  the  Allegheny  mountains,  I  should  think  it 
was  irony — the  very  bitterness  of  irony;  but  coming  from  my 
friend  from  Illinois,  distinguished  for  his  courtesy,  I  know 
that  it  is  nothing  but— 54°  40'.1 

I  cannot  but  feel  that  all  this  argument  in  reference  to  the 
relative  power  of  our  adversary,  rating  or  berating  her,  is  in 
very  questionable  taste  in  existing  circumstances.  If  we  are 
forced  to  touch  her  shield  with  the  point  of  the  lance,  let  us 
do  it  with  the  chivalrous  feeling  and  dignity  of  a  high-toned 
nation.  Then  let  each  wheel  into  position,  and  God  defend 
the  right.  I  am  willing  to  go  to  the  American  people  on  princi- 
ples of  compromise.  I  am  persuaded  that  the  people  will  sus- 
tain the  man  and  the  Administration  that  settle  this  question 
on  that  basis.  It  is  a  common  notion  that  the  war  party  of  this 
country  must  be  the  popular  party  of  the  country.  I  do  not 
believe  it.  It  is  an  error;  and  it  is  an  error  which  tends  to 
produce  the  very  mischief  that  would  have  no  existence  without 
it.  There  is  always  to  be  found  a  class  of  men  who  prefer  ar- 
ranging themselves  with  that  party  which  is  supposed  to  be  a 
popular  party  in  the  country.  Now  it  would  be  a  great  public 
benefit  to  explode  the  error  that  a  war  party  would  be  popular 
in  all  circumstances.  Heretofore  our  wars  have  been  popular 
because  they  have  been  wars  for  great  principles,  and  not  wars 
for  mere  property.  The  Revolutionary  War,  I  need  not  say, 
was  not  a  war  about  three  cents  on  a  pound  of  tea.  It  involved 
the  rights  of  man — the  great  principles  of  free  government.  The 
late  war  was  not  a  war  about  property ;  it  was  about  principles 
all  over — the  freedom  of  the  seas — the  honor  of  our  flag.  Like 
causes  will  produce  like  effects;  and,  in  the  same,  or  like,  cir- 
cumstances, war  would  be  popular  again.  But  think  you  that 
a  war  about  the  pine  logs  of  Maine  would  have  been  a  popular 
war?  Think  you  that  a  war  about  Oregon,  or  rather  a  part  of 
Oregon  above  49°,  would  be  a  popular  war?  It  might  be  so 
at  the  beginning  with  certain  classes;  but  the  brunt  of  the  war 
— the  taxes  to  carry  it  on — would  fall  upon  a  different  class  of 
men  altogether — on  honorable,  prudent,  thinking  men;  on  your 
merchants  and  mechanics.    These  are  the  men  who  would  be  nec- 

*In  other  words,  buncombe! 


THE    OREGON   BOUNDARY  317 

essarily  compelled  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  war.  As  long  as 
your  war  is  a  war  of  principles  these  men  will  stand  by  you ;  as 
soon  as  it  becomes  simply  a  war  of  property  they  will  count  the 
cost. 

The  intelligence,  the  prudence,  the  thought  of  this  country 
must  govern  the  country  at  last.  Unless  it  be  so,  your  insti- 
tutions, which  place  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the  people  are 
an  empty  name.  Public  men  are  sometimes  too  apt  to  distrust 
the  capacity  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves;  they  are  too 
apt  to  draw  back  from  the  control  of  public  opinion.  But  we 
need  never  despair  of  the  people,  when  a  man  can  stand  on  this 
floor  and  speak  in  a  voice  that  shall  reach  every  hamlet  beyond 
the  mountains — never,  never.  Let  the  public  men  of  this  coun- 
try, of  both  sides  of  this  Chamber,  stand  up  to  their  responsi- 
bilities and  the  people  will  stand  by  them.  Popular  sentiment 
is  not  always  right.  The  needle  itself  is  not  forever  constant 
to  the  pole.  But  the  hidden  influence  is  there.  Remove  ex- 
traneous and  disturbing  causes — give  the  public  mind  fair 
play;  it  may  vibrate  for  a  time,  but  at  last  it  settles — tremu- 
lously perhaps,  but  faithfully — to  the  north.  Let  the  public 
men  of  this  country  who  believe  that  a  war  for  54°  40'  would 
be  wrong  but  do  their  duty,  neither  the  present  Administration 
nor  any  other  Administration  dare  involve  the  country  in  such 
a  war.  If  they  do,  whatever  may  be  their  purity,  their  patriot- 
ism, a  political  blunder  of  that  magnitude  would  inevitably 
bring  any  Administration,  and  all  its  aiders  and  abettors,  to 
the  block. 

Senator  Haywood. — This  question  of  Oregon  had  been 
turned  into  a  party  question,  for  the  purpose  of  president-mak- 
ing. I  repudiate  any  submission  to  the  commands  of  factious 
meetings,  got  up  by  demagogues,  for  the  purpose  of  dictating  to 
the  Senate  how  to  make  a  treaty.  I  do  not  regard  such  pro- 
ceedings as  indicative  of  that  true  Democracy,  which,  like  a 
potato,  grew  at  the  root,  and  did  not,  like  the  spurious  Democ- 
racy, show  itself  from  the  blossom.  The  creed  of  the  Baltimore 
convention  directs  the  party  to  reannex  Texas  and  to  reoccupy 
Oregon.  Texas  has  been  reannexed,  and  now  we  are  to  go  for 
the  reoccupation  of  Oregon.  Now,  Old  Oregon,  embracing  all 
the  territory  on  which  American  foot  ever  trod,  comprised 
merely  the  valley  of  Willamette,  which  did  not  extend  above 
49° ;  and,  consequently,  this  portion  was  all  which  could  be 
contemplated  in  the  expression  "  reoccupation, "  as  it  would 
involve  an  absurdity  to  speak  of  reoccupying  what  we  had 
never  occupied. 


318  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Senator  Hannegan  denied  that  the  resolution  of  the 
Baltimore  convention  referred  merely  to  • '  Old  Oregon, '  ■ 
and  asserted  that,  by  the  expression  "the  whole  of  Ore- 
gon, ' '  they  claimed  the  entire  territory  in  dispute. 

The  Democratic  party  is  thus  bound  to  the  whole  of  Oregon 
— every  foot  of  it;  and  let  the  Senator  rise  in  his  place  who 
will  tell  me  in  what  quarter  of  this  Union — in  what  assembly  of 
Democrats  in  this  Union,  pending  the  Presidential  election,  the 
names  of  Texas  and  Oregon  did  not  fly  together,  side  by  side, 
on  the  Democratic  banners.  Everywhere  they  were  twins — 
everywhere  they  were  united.  " Texas  and  Oregon' '  cannot 
be  divided;  they  dwell  together  in  the  American  heart.  Even 
in  Texas  I  have  been  told  the  flag  of  the  lone  star  has  inscribed 
on  it  the  name  of  Oregon.  Then  it  was  all  Oregon.  Now  when 
you  have  got  Texas,  it  means  just  so  much  of  Oregon  as  you, 
in  your  kindness  and  condescension,  think  proper  to  give  us. 
You  little  know  us  if  you  think  the  mighty  West  will  be  trod- 
den on  in  this  way.  Let  gentlemen  look  at  their  own  recorded 
votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  Oregon  bill  at  the  close  of 
the  last  session,  and  then  let  them  look  at  the  language  of  that 
bill  and  see  if  it  did  not  propose  to  take  possession  of  Oregon 
up  to  54°  40',  after  giving  unqualified  notice  to  Great  Britain 
that  the  convention  must  cease. 

The  Senator  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Haywood],  in  his 
defence  of  the  President,  put  language  into  his  mouth  which 
I  undertake  to  say  the  President  will  repudiate,  and  I  am  not 
the  President's  champion.  I  would  not  be  the  champion  of 
power.  I  defend  the  right,  and  the  right  only.  But,  for  the 
President,  I  deny  the  intentions  which  the  Senator  from  North 
Carolina  attributes  to  him — intentions  which,  if  really  enter- 
tained by  him,  would  make  him  an  infamous  man — aye,  an  in- 
famous man.  He  (Mr.  Haywood)  told  the  Senate  yesterday — 
unless  I  grossly  misunderstood  him,  along  with  several  friends 
around  me — "that  the  President  had  occasionally  stickings-in, 
parenthetically,  to  gratify — what  ? — the  ultraisms  of  the  country 
and  of  party;  while  he  reposed  in  the  White  House  with  no 
intentions  of  carrying  out  these  parenthetical  stickings-in. ' '  In 
plain  words,  he  represents  the  President  as  parenthetically  stick- 
ing in  a  few  hollow  and  false  words  to  cajole  the  "ultraisms  of 
the  country."  What  is  this,  need  I  ask,  but  charging  upon  the 
President  conduct  the  most  vile  and  infamous?  If  this  allega- 
tion be  true,  these  intentions  of  the  President  must  sooner  or 
later  come  to  light,  and  when  brought  to  light,  what  must  follow 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  319 

but  irretrievable  disgrace?  So  long  as  one  human  eye  remains, 
to  linger  on  the  page  of  history,  the  story  of  his  abasement  will 
be  read,  sending  him  and  his  name  together  to  an  infamy  so 
profound,  a  damnation  so  deep,  that  the  hand  of  resurrection 
will  never  be  able  to  drag  him  forth.  He  who  is  the  traitor  to 
his  country  can  never  have  forgiveness  of  God,  and  cannot  ask 
mercy  of  man. 

The  last  steamer  from  Europe,  it  is  said,  puts  this  question 
in  such  a  position  that  for  Oregon  we  can  get  free  trade.  Free 
trade  I  love  dearly ;  but  never  will  it  be  bought  by  me  by  the 
territory  of  my  country.  He  who  would  entertain  such  an  idea 
is  a  traitor  to  his  country.  I  speak  for  myself,  and  my  own  sec- 
tion of  the  country.  Free  trade  for  a  surrender  of  the  ports  and 
harbors  on  the  Pacific  ?  Never,  sir ;  never.  Whence  this  move- 
ment for  free  trade  on  the  part  of  England?  Does  not  every- 
one know  that  she  has  been  driven  into  this  course  by  the  out- 
cries of  starving  millions  ?  that  she  has  been  forced  into  this  pol- 
icy by  the  land  owners,  to  save  their  lives  from  the  knife  of  the 
midnight  assassin,  and  their  palaces  from  the  torch  of  the 
prowling  incendiary?  But  the  West  is  to  be  provided  for;  it 
is  to  have  a  new  and  most  profitable  market.  Some  of  us  know 
that  from  the  Baltic  England  would  get  her  wheat  long  before 
we  could  send  a  ton  into  her  market.  I  advert  to  this  simply 
because  I  do  not  know  that  I  shall  have  another  opportunity  to 
do  so.  I  have  only  to  add  that,  so  far  as  the  whole  tone,  spirit, 
and  meaning  of  the  remarks  of  the  Senator  from  North  Carolina 
are  concerned,  if  they  speak  the  language  of  James  K.  Polk, 
James  K.  Polk  has  spoken  words  of  falsehood,  and  with  the 
tongue  of  a  serpent. 

Senator  Calhoun. — Peace  is  preeminently  our  policy. 
There  are  nations  in  the  world  who  may  resort  to  war  for  the 
settlement  of  their  differences,  and  still  grow  great;  but  that 
nation  is  not  ours.  Providence  has  cast  our  happy  inheritance 
where  its  frontier  extends  for  twenty-three  degrees  of  latitude 
along  the  Atlantic  coast.  It  has  given  us  a  land  which  in  natu- 
ral advantages  is  perhaps  unequaled  by  any  other.  Abundant 
in  all  resources;  excellent  in  climate;  fertile  and  exuberant  in 
soil ;  capable  of  sustaining,  in  the  plentiful  enjoyment  of  all  the 
necessaries  of  life,  a  population  of  two  hundred  millions  of  souls. 
Our  great  mission  as  a  people  is  to  occupy  this  vast  domain — 
there  to  fulfil  the  primeval  command  to  increase  and  multiply, 
and  replenish  the  land  with  an  industrious  and  virtuous  popu- 
lation; to  level  the  forests,  and  let  in  upon  their  solitude  the 
light  of  day;  to  clear  the  swamps  and  morasses  and  redeem 


320  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

them  to  the  plow  and  sickle;  to  spread  over  hill  and  dale  the 
echoes  of  human  labor  and  human  happiness  and  contentment ; 
to  fill  the  land  with  cities,  and  towns,  and  villages;  to  unite  its 
opposite  extremities  by  turnpikes  and  railroads,  to  scoop  out 
canals  for  the  transmission  of  its  products,  and  open  rivers  for 
its  internal  trade.  War  can  only  impede  the  fulfillment  of  this 
high  mission  of  Heaven;  it  absorbs  the  wealth  and  diverts  the 
energy  which  might  be  so  much  better  devoted  to  the  improve- 
ment of  our  country.  All  we  want  is  peace — established  peace ; 
and  then  time,  under  the  guidance  of  a  wise  and  cautious  policy, 
will  soon  effect  for  us  all  the  rest. 

I  say  time  will  do  it,  under  the  influence  of  a  wise  and  mas- 
terly inactivity — a  phrase  than  which  none  other  has  been  less 
understood  or  more  grossly  misrepresented.  By  some  who 
should  have  known  better  it  has  been  construed  to  mean  inac- 
tion. But  mere  inertness  and  what  is  meant  by  a  wise  inactiv- 
ity are  things  wide  apart  as  the  poles.  The  one  is  the  offspring 
of  ignorance  and  of  indolence;  the  other  is  the  result  of  the 
profoundest  wisdom — a  wisdom  which  looks  into  the  nature  and 
bearing  of  things;  which  sees  how  conspiring  causes  work  out 
their  effects,  and  shape  and  change  the  condition  of  man.  Where 
we  find  that  natural  causes  will  of  themselves  work  out  our 
good,  our  wisdom  is  to  let  them  work ;  and  all  our  task  is  to  re- 
move impediments.  In  the  present  case,  one  of  the  greatest  of 
these  impediments  is  found  in  our  impatience. 

He  who  cannot  understand  the  difference  between  an  inac- 
tivity like  this  and  mere  stupid  inaction  and  the  doing  of  noth- 
ing is  as  yet  but  in  the  horn  book  of  political  science.  Yes, 
time — ever-laboring  time — will  effect  everything  for  us.  Our 
population  is  now  increasing  at  the  annual  average  of  six  hun- 
dred thousand.  Let  the  next  twenty-five  years  elapse,  and  our 
average  increase  will  have  reached  a  million  a  year,  and,  before 
many  of  the  younger  Senators  here  shall  have  become  as  gray- 
headed  as  I  am,  we  shall  count  a  population  of  forty-five  mil- 
lions. Before  that  day,  it  will  have  spread  from  ocean  to  ocean. 
The  coasts  of  the  Pacific  will  then  be  as  densely  populated  and 
as  thickly  settled  with  villages  and  towns  as  the  coast  of  the 
Atlantic  is  now.  In  another  generation  we  shall  have  reached 
eighty  millions  of  people,  and,  if  we  can  preserve  peace,  who 
shall  set  bounds  to  our  prosperity,  or  our  success?  With  one 
foot  planted  on  the  Atlantic  and  the  other  on  the  Pacific,  we 
shall  occupy  a  position  between  the  two  old  continents  of  the 
world — a  position  eminently  calculated  to  secure  to  us  the  com- 
merce and  the  influence  of  both.    If  we  abide  by  the  counsels  of 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  321 

common  sense — if  we  succeed  in  preserving  our  constitutional 
liberty,  we  shall  then  exhibit  a  spectacle  such  as  the  world  never 
saw.  I  know  that  this  one  great  mission  is  encompassed  with 
difficulties;  but  such  is  the  inherent  energy  of  our  political 
system  and  such  its  expansive  capability  that  it  may  be  made  to 
govern  the  widest  space.  If  by  war  we  become  great,  we  cannot 
be  free ;  if  we  will  be  both  great  and  free,  our  policy  is  peace. 


PRESIDENT     (C)ASS     BEGINNING    OPERATIONS,    LOSING     NO    TIME 

[General  Taylor  on  left  and  General  Scott  on  right.] 
From  thelcollection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 

Senator  Cass. — I  am  a  firm  believer  in  the  sure  and  mighty 
efficacy  of  the  great  agent  Time,  but  I  believe  that  Great  Britain 
will  not  herself  permit  this  state  of  things  to  continue.  "  Who- 
ever has  Oregon  will  command  the  North  Pacific"  is  the  lan- 
guage which  has  been  used  in  England ;  and  is  it  to  be  expected 
that  she  will  quietly  witness  the  occupation  of  that  country  by 
a  dense  population  of  American  citizens?  If  she  will  ever  aban- 
don the  country,  she  will  do  it  now,  when  there  can  be  no  dis- 
honor in  giving  it  up;  not  when  there  has  grown  up  there  a 
great  power  capable  of  resisting  her. 

The  evils  of  war  have,  in  my  opinion,  been  too  gloomily  rep- 
resented by  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina.  Admitting  that  a 
war  of  ten — of  five — years  will  be  disastrous  to  us;  it  cannot 
exist  without  bringing  into  collision  the  great  questions  of  our 
day — the  right  to  govern  and  to  obey.     But,  if  it  were  to  be 


322  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

even  more  disastrous  than  he  represented,  was  it  right  for  the 
Senator  to  make  the  prediction  that  such  a  war  would  produce 
the  overthrow  of  this  Government  ?  In  that  view,  a  war  would 
at  once  be  a  signal  of  destruction,  and  we  have  nothing  left  but, 
when  smitten  on  the  one  cheek,  to  turn  the  other.  I  believe 
that,  although  we  should  suffer  severely,  we  should  come  out 
from  another  conflict  with  many  glorious  wreaths  on  our  brows. 
Many  a  raven  has  croaked  in  the  last  war.  Many  a  Cas- 
sandra has  foretold  the  ruin  of  the  country.  But  nothing  has 
come  of  their  forebodings.  I  regard  our  country  as  the  strong- 
est for  good,  and  the  weakest  for  evil,  in  the  world.  Resting  on 
public  opinion,  it  is  the  only  Government  in  which  there  can  be 
no  revolution. 

Similar  resolutions  to  those  of  Senator  Allen  were 
introduced  in  the  House  by  Charles  J.  Ingersoll  (Penn- 
sylvania) on  January  5,  1846",  who  on  February  9  also 
introduced  a  joint  resolution  of  the  House  and  Senate 
to  give  Great  Britain  notice  of  the  termination  of  the 
convention.  The  joint  resolution  passed  on  the  same 
day  by  a  vote  of  163  to  54.  It  passed  the  Senate  on 
March  31  by  a  vote  of  40  to  14. 

The  Oregon  Compeomisb 

House  of  Representatives,  January  5-February  9,  1846 

Speakers  in  the  House  in  favor  of  insisting  on  "the 
whole  of  Oregon"  were  Henry  W.  Hilliard  (Alabama), 
Howell  Cobb  (Georgia),  Stephen  A.  Douglas  (Illinois); 
those  opposed  to  it  were  William  L.  Yancey  (Alabama), 
Eobert  M.  T.  Hunter  (Virginia)  and  Jefferson  Davis 
(Mississippi). 

Mr.  Hilliard. — England  and  the  United  States  are  the  only 
competitors  for  the  trade  of  Southern  China.  England  imports 
every  year  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  chests  of  tea,  while 
we  import  two  hundred  thousand,  besides  muslins  and  silks  and 
other  commodities  of  great  value.  In  this  gainful  traffic,  Eng- 
land regards  us  as  a  rival  power,  and  she  is  by  no  means  dis- 
posed to  give  it  up.  The  coast  of  Oregon  fronts  that  of  China, 
and  presents  great  facilities  for  carrying  on  this  important 
branch  of  our  commerce.  Fully  to  avail  ourselves,  however,  of 
these  advantages,  we  ought  to  connect  Oregon  with  the  Statg 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  323 

of  Missouri  by  the  construction  of  a  railroad.  This  is  not  so 
wild  and  visionary  a  scheme  as  at  the  first  view  some  gentlemen 
might  be  disposed  to  consider  it.  Let  them  reflect  that  it  is 
but  fifteen  years  since  Mr.  Huskisson  lost  his  life  between  Liver- 
pool and  Manchester,  in  an  experimental  trip  over  the  first  rail- 
road ever  constructed  in  England.  And  what  was  she  doing  in 
that  system  now  ?  And  then  look  on  the  Continent,  and  see  one 
continuous  line  of  railroad,  extending  twenty-seven  hundred 
miles,  entirely  across  Europe,  from  Odessa  to  Bremen,  while  an- 
other line  extends  from  the  Adriatic  for  near  a  thousand  miles. 
And  yet  gentlemen  stand  here  and  look  aghast  when  anyone 
speaks  of  a  railroad  across  our  continent,  as  if  it  were  something 
wondrous  and  altogether  unheard  of  before. 

Should  such  a  road  be  constructed,  it  will  become  the  great 
highway  of  the  world ;  we  shall  before  long  monopolize  the  trade 
of  the  eastern  coasts  of  Asia.  At  present  the  shortest  possible 
voyage  from  London  to  Canton  occupies  seventy  days;  but  by 
such  a  railroad  a  traveler  might  pass  from  London  to  Canton  in 
forty  days.  There  is  no  wildness,  no  extravagance  in  the  idea; 
but  it  is  a  matter  of  sober  sense  and  plain  calculation.  What 
a  magnificent  idea  does  it  present  to  the  mind,  and  who  could 
calculate  the  results  to  which  it  would  lead?  With  a  route  so 
short  and  so  direct  as  this,  may  we  not  reasonably  hope,  in  a 
great  measure,  to  command  both  the  trade  and  the  travel  of 
the  world  ?  Engrafted  on  this  plan,  and  as  its  natural  adjunct 
is  the  extension  of  a  magnetic  telegraph,  which  should  follow  the 
course  of  the  road ;  unite  the  two,  and  where  is  the  imagination 
which  can  grasp  the  consequences? 

When  Oregon  shall  be  fully  in  our  possession,  when  we  shall 
have  established  a  profitable  trade  with  China  through  her  ports, 
when  our  sails  traverse  the  Pacific  as  they  now  cross  the  Atlan- 
tic, and  all  the  countless  consequences  of  such  a  state  of  things 
begin  to  flow  in  upon  us,  then  will  be  fulfilled  that  vision  which 
wrapt  and  filled  the  mind  of  Nufiez  as  he  gazed  over  the  placid 
waves  of  the  Pacific. 

Mb.  Yancey. — We  are  now  on  the  very  portals  of  success  in 
carrying  out  those  noble  principles  of  government  which  our 
fathers  bequeathed  to  us,  and  which,  if  once  wholly  in  opera- 
tion, will  do  more  than  anything  else  to  advance  the  cause  of  lib- 
erty and  happiness.  We  have  just  purged  the  old  Republican 
party  of  that  system  of  bastard  Republicanism  which  the  war  of 
1812  bequeathed  to  the  country,  and  have  infused  into  it  a  new 
life  and  energy.  We  are  on  the  point,  too,  of  purchasing  the 
magnificent  territory  of  California,  which,  with  Oregon,  would 


324  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

give  us  a  breadth  of  Pacific  coast  suited  to  the  grandeur  and 
commercial  importance  of  our  Republic. 

All  this  would  be  blighted  by  war.  California  would  be  lost 
to  us ;  Oregon  would  be  lost  to  us.  A  debt  of  five  hundred  mil- 
lions would  be  imposed  upon  the  country.  The  paper  system,  in 
its  worst  form,  will  necessarily  have  been  imposed  upon  us.  The 
pension  list — that  spring  of  life  and  immortality  to  patriotic 
valor — would  be  almost  indefinitely  increased.  The  Government 
will  have  become  centralized ;  its  checks  weakened ;  its  adminis- 
tration federalized  in  all  its  tendencies.  The  fabric  of  State 
rights  will  have  been  swept  away,  and  remain  only  as  a  glorious 
dream;  and  a  strong  military  bias  will  have  been  given  to  the 
future  career  of  our  country,  which,  while  it  may  be  splendid  in 
appearance,  will  bear  within  itself  the  certain  elements  of  de- 
struction. 

I  have  endeavored,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  demonstrate  that  giv- 
ing to  England  notice  that  we  design  to  take  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  Oregon  will  produce  a  war;  that  war  will  either  termi- 
nate in  the  loss  of  Oregon  or  in  effecting  nothing  toward  per- 
fecting possession  in  us;  that  England  will  not  give  the  notice, 
and  that  neither  the  honor  nor  the  wants  of  the  country  require 
us  to  do  so. 

I  now  propose  to  show,  sir,  that  a  system  of  peaceful  meas- 
ures will  tend  much  more  effectually  to  give  us  ' '  all  of  Oregon ' ' 
than  warlike  movements  will. 

I  am  willing  to  raise  mounted  regiments  sufficient  to  protect 
emigration  to  Oregon  over  our  vast  Western  plains. 

I  am  ready  to  build  such  a  station  at  the  South  Pass  as  will 
enable  the  emigrants,  as  they  reach  a  point  from  which  they 
can  look  upon  the  vast  Atlantic  slope  on  the  one  hand,  and  that 
of  the  Pacific  on  the  other,  to  recruit  and  refit  there. 

I  am  ready  to  cover  our  people  there  with  the  gegis  of  our 
laws  to  the  extent  that  England  has  protected  her  subjects. 

I  am  ready  to  offer  such  other  and  more  tempting  induce- 
ments to  its  settlement  as  gentlemen  may  devise,  in  order  that, 
in  five  years'  time,  one  hundred  thousand  men  may  be  thrown 
in  the  vales  and  amidst  the  hills  of  this  disputed  land. 

It  would  then  be  a  part  and  parcel  of  our  Union.  As  such, 
it  never  could  be  conquered.  I  sincerely  believe  what  was  the 
wish  at  the  time  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  expressed  twenty  years 
ago  to  our  minister — "Why  are  you  Americans  so  anxious  to 
push  this  negotiation  ?  In  a  short  time  you  would  conquer  Ore- 
gon in  your  bed-chambers. ' '  And  most  assuredly  this  will  not 
be  deemed  treason  in  me,  if  I  say  that  such  a  mode  of  perfect- 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  325 

ing  possession  of  that  disputed  land  is  far  preferable  to  any 
more  bloody  issue. 

I  would  go  a  step  further  than  the  notice,  and  extend  the 
protection  of  our  laws  over  our  citizens  in  Oregon.  If  we  do  not, 
we  shall  fall  short  of  our  duty.  After  doing  this,  I  would  go 
still  further,  and  create  those  bands  of  iron  which  were  to  bind 
indissolubly  together  in  one  union  the  people  of  the  Atlantic 
and  the  people  of  the  Pacific.  I  would  go  for  a  railroad  across 
the  Rocky  Mountains — for  annihilating  time  and  space  between 
us  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  Pacific  coast.  In  a  military  point 
of  view,  this  railroad  will  be  necessary.  We  shall  be  obliged,  for 
the  protection  and  defence  of  the  country,  to  establish  this  mode 
of  communication.  While  it  will  afford  military  protection  for 
the  defence  of  the  country,  it  will  be  the  means  of  creating  a 
vast  trade  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  portions  of  the  con- 
tinent. The  immediate  consequence  of  such  a  trade  will  be  to 
open  a  traffic  in  our  manufactures  with  the  people  of  the  East 
Indies;  next,  we  shall  be  able  to  drive  out  all  competition  on 
the  part  of  the  British  fabrics  in  that  lucrative  and  important 
trade.  We  will,  by  means  of  this  overland  communication,  be 
soon  able  to  create  immense  commercial  depots  on  the  coast  of 
the  Pacific.  We  can  make  voyages  to  the  East  Indies  in  half 
the  time  that  Great  Britain  can.  Our  manufactures  will  thus 
compete  in  that  important  and  increasing  market  with  those  of 
Great  Britain,  and,  indeed,  drive  out  all  competition;  and  thus 
they  will  become  established  on  a  firm  foundation,  without  the 
aid  of  a  black  tariff  to  maintain  them.  I  have  always  opposed 
internal  improvements  by  the  general  Government ;  but  I  would 
adopt  this  improvement  as  a  military  work — one  necessary  for 
the  public  defence,  though  it  would  be  used  for  civil  and  com- 
mercial purposes. 

Mr.  Douglas  (chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories). 
— We  propose,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  to  give  notice 
for  the  termination  of  that  treaty  of  1827  which  continued  in 
force  the  convention  of  1818;  and  we  are  met  by  the  declara- 
tion that  this  notice  is  a  hostile  movement — that  it  is  a  war 
measure — that  it  is  equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  war  by  this 
country  against  Great  Britain ;  and  hence  we  are  called  upon  to 
pause  and  reflect  before  we  make  this  movement,  which  may 
bring  the  thunders  of  the  British  fleet  and  of  the  British  army 
to  our  shores;  and  appeals  are  made  to  our  fears  in  order  to 
deter  us  from  adopting  this  measure.  Sir,  I  know  not  whether 
the  giving  this  notice  and  the  annulment  of  the  treaty  may  lead 
to  war  or  not ;  I  know  not  whether  war  will  be  the  result.    But, 


326  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

sir,  there  is  one  thing  which  I  do  know — and  a  thing  which  is 
far  more  important  in  the  decision  of  this  question  than  the 
other — and  that  one  thing  is  this :  that  the  giving  of  this  notice 
will  afford  no  just  cause  of  war.  It  is  immaterial  with  reference 
to  influencing  our  decision  of  this  question  whether  war  is  to  be 
the  consequence  or  not;  but  it  is  important  for  us  to  inquire 
whether  the  act  we  are  about  to  perform  will  give  good  ground 
of  offence — just  cause  of  war.  If  it  will,  we  ought  to  pause  and 
consider  well  before  we  proceed.  But  if  it  give  no  just  cause  of 
war,  it  is  no  argument  that  Great  Britain  will  choose  to  make  it 
a  cause  of  war. 

If  gentlemen  will  reflect  a  moment  on  the  history  of  this 
question,  they  will  find  that,  at  the  breaking  out  of  the  late 
war,  the  valley  of  the  Columbia  river  was  in  the  possession  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States ;  that,  during  that  war,  it  was  cap- 
tured by  Great  Britain ;  and  that  by  the  treaty  of  peace  it  was 
provided  that  all  countries  captured  by  Great  Britain  should  be 
restored  to  us.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  first  article  of  the  treaty 
of  Ghent.  In  it,  it  was  agreed  that  "all  territory,  places,  and 
possessions,  whatsoever,  taken  by  either  party  from  the  other 
during  the  war,  or  which  may  be  taken  after  the  signing  the 
treaty,  excepting  only  the  islands  hereinafter  mentioned  [in  the 
Bay  of  Fundy],  shall  be  restored  without  delay." 

The  treaty  of  peace  then  provided  for  the  restoration  of  all 
places,  possessions,  or  territories  captured  by  either  party.  Sir, 
as  quick  as  that  treaty  was  ratified  and  published  to  the  world, 
the  American  Government  demanded  of  Great  Britain  the  resto- 
ration of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia  river  in  pursuance  of  the 
treaty.  What  did  Great  Britain  do?  She  objected;  she  set  up 
a  claim  to  that  country;  she  said  it  was  a  part  of  the  British 
empire.  But,  sir,  you  find  by  examining  the  negotiation  at  that 
time  that,  notwithstanding  all  her  objections,  when  Mr.  Rush  re- 
plied to  them,  that  by  the  treaty  we  were  entitled  to  the  full 
possession,  or  repossession  (in  his  own  language),  she  admitted 
that  right,  and  she  acknowledged  that  the  United  States  under 
the  treaty  of  Ghent  were  entitled  to  the  actual,  the  full  repos- 
session of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia,  and  that  we  had  the  right 
to  remain  in  possession  while  negotiating  of  the  title. 

Then,  Great  Britain,  in  pursuance  of  that  treaty,  did  sur- 
render the  settlement  of  Fort  George  in  the  Columbia  valley. 
That  settlement  was  not  merely  a  fort;  not  merely  a  fort  was 
surrendered,  but  the  settlement  comprising  Astoria  and  several 
other  posts,  and  that  settlement  commanding  the  whole  valley  of 
the  Columbia  river.    It  was,  then,  the  valley  of  the  Columbia 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  327 

that  was  surrendered  by  the  British  Government,  which  govern- 
ment then  acknowledged  the  right  of  the  American  Government 
"to  be  reinstated,  and  to  be  the  party  in  possession  while  treat- 
ing on  the  question  of  title." 

That  was  the  relative  position  of  the  two  parties  prior  to  en- 
tering into  the  treaty  of  joint  occupation — the  United  States  in 
possession,  Great  Britain  setting  up  a  claim,  but  acknowledging 
our  right  to  the  possession  while  adjudicating  the  claims  of  the 
respective  parties.  That  would  have  been  our  right  had  it  not 
been  for  that  treaty.  That  treaty  suspends  that  right;  but  it 
provides  that  nothing  in  it  shall  be  construed  to  impair  or  affect 
the  rights  of  either  party.  Hence,  if  you  terminate  the  treaty, 
if  you  annul  the  treaty,  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  exclu- 
sive possession  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  is  revived,  and  Great 
Britain  cannot — dare  not — resist  the  restitution  of  the  Colum- 
bia valley.  It  is  no  cause  of  war — no  war  movement.  It  is 
carrying  into  effect  our  treaty  stipulations ;  and  the  effect  of  giv- 
ing this  notice  will  be  to  suspend  the  joint  occupancy,  to  restore 
possession  to  us ;  and,  when  in  possession,  we  will  be  ready  to 
treat  upon  the  title,  and  not  till  then.  Is  it,  then,  a  matter  of  no 
consequence  which  party  is  in  possession  while  treating  upon 
the  title?  Carry  on  the  negotiation  now,  leave  the  treaty  of 
joint  occupation  in  force,  and  Great  Britain  is  the  party  in  pos- 
session; but  give  this  notice,  terminate  the  treaty,  and  the 
United  States  will  be  the  party  in  possession.  But  gentlemen 
may  say  that  Great  Britain  will  never  acknowledge  this  exclu- 
sive right  of  the  United  States  to  the  possession  of  the  valley  of 
the  Columbia  before  the  question  is  settled.  In  reply  to  this,  I 
say  that  Great  Britain  has  acknowledged  that  right;  and  that 
she  has  not  only  acknowledged  it  in  words,  but  by  a  solemn  act 
that  must  stand  prominent  in  the  history  of  that  government; 
so  long  as  that  history  shall  exist,  she  has  estopped  herself  from 
denying  our  right  to  the  possession.  She  has  once  acknowledged 
it,  and  has  once  restored  possession  under  that  acknowledgment. 
Can  she  refuse  again  to  make  a  similar  restoration  when  the 
parties  in  respect  of  their  rights  are  similarly  situated?  If  she 
does  refuse  to  make  that  restoration  when  the  notice  shall  have 
been  given  and  shall  have  expired,  she  will  have  to  violate  her 
solemn  treaty  stipulations;  she  will  become  the  aggressor;  she 
will  be  violating  her  plighted  faith  in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized 
world;  and  she  dare  not  take  the  responsibility  of  such  an  act 
of  perfidy  and  bad  faith  after  she  herself  has  once  acknowledged 
her  obligations  by  performing  the  same  act  of  surrender. 

Gentlemen  who  oppose  giving  the  notice  say  that  they  are 


328  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

for  getting  possession.  But  how  getting  possession  ?  Why,  they 
are  for  continuing  the  treaty  of  joint  occupation  in  force,  and 
then  for  stealing  possession  in  violation  of  that  treaty  of  joint 
occupation.  Yes ;  they  are  for  adopting  the  high,  the  chivalrous 
course  of  stealing  into  that  country  under  a  treaty  of  joint 
occupation,  and  then  seizing  it  in  violation  of  the  treaty  itself. 
Will  that  not  lead  to  war !  Is  that  the  peaceful  remedy  f  Will 
not  that  wound  the  pride  of  the  British  Government?  Sir,  I 
aver  that  the  attempt  to  carry  that  policy  out  leads  inevitably 
to  war;  and  not  only  to  war,  but  it  puts  us  on  the  wrong  side. 
It  convicts  our  Government  of  an  act  of  duplicity  and  perfidy. 
It  arrays  the  whole  civilized  world  against  us,  and  renders  us 
subject  to  the  charge  that  we  are  faithless  and  dishonorable. 
But  if  we  rely  on  the  treaty  stipulations  of  the  country — if  we 
stand  high  on  our  undeniable  rights,  and  give  the  notice  ac- 
cording to  the  treaty,  and  demand  possession  under  the  treaty 
of  Ghent,  and  insist  upon  it — if  we  require  the  surrender,  as 
we  have  done  once  before — then,  sir,  we  get  peaceful  possession 
of  that  country ;  and,  when  in  peaceful  possession,  we  can  then 
stand  on  high  ground  and  say  to  Great  Britain :  ' '  Certainly  we 
deprecate  war;  we  are  ready  to  negotiate,  and  are  willing  you 
should  take  your  own  time  to  bring  that  negotiation  to  a  deter- 
mination. You  may  do  it  with  all  the  care,  with  all  the  deliber- 
ation you  may  desire ;  and  you  can  take  your  own  time  to  termi- 
nate it."  But,  in  the  mean  time,  we  are  in  possession,  with 
the  acknowledged  right  of  possession,  until  we  arrive  at  an 
amicable  adjustment. 

For  one,  I  never  will  be  satisfied  with  the  valley  of  the  Col- 
umbia, nor  with  49°,  nor  with  54°  40';  nor  will  I  be,  while 
Great  Britain  shall  hold  possession  of  one  acre  on  the  northwest 
coast  of  America.  And,  sir,  I  will  never  agree  to  any  arrange- 
ment that  shall  recognize  her  right  to  one  inch  of  soil  upon  the 
northwest  coast;  and  for  this  simple  reason:  Great  Britain 
never  did  own,  she  never  did  have  a  valid  title  to,  one  inch  of 
that  country.  The  question  was  only  one  of  dispute  between 
Russia,  Spain,  and  the  United  States.  England  never  had  a 
title  to  any  part  of  the  country.  Our  Government  has  always 
held  that  England  had  no  title  to  it.  In  1826  Mr.  Clay,  in  his 
dispatches  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  said :  ' '  It  is  not  conceived  that  the 
British  Government  can  make  out  even  a  colorable  title  to  any 
part  of  the  northwest  coast.' ' 

Mr.  Cobb. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  prepared  to  go  to  the 
full  extent  with  some  who  declare  that  the  inevitable  result  of 
the  passage  of  this  notice  will  be  to  involve  this  country  in  a 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  329 

bloody  and  destructive  war.  Nor  am  I  prepared,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  go  with  those  who  fearlessly  assert  that  there  is  no 
danger  to  result  from  our  action  in  reference  to  Oregon.  I 
plant  myself  on  this  ground  that  the  prosecution  of  the  just 
rights  of  my  Government  is  the  course  called  for  by  the  national 
faith  and  honor  of  my  country.  If  peace  be  the  result,  I  shall 
gladly  welcome  it.  If  war  be  the  consequence,  we  must  meet 
it.  It  is  a  crisis  not  to  be  avoided,  not  to  be  evaded,  but  to  be 
met  with  boldness,  firmness,  and  decision.  When  we  have  dis- 
charged our  duties,  then,  sir,  it  will  be  for  another  department 
of  our  Government,  and  for  the  government  with  whom  we 
are  in  collision  upon  this  subject,  to  do  what  they  may  conceive 
to  be  their  duty.  That  we  should  suffer  from  a  war  I  do  not 
pretend  to  deny;  that  we  shall  lose  the  Oregon  Territory  by 
resorting  to  war,  I  utterly  but  respectfully  repudiate  the  idea. 
Whenever  this  Government  shall  be  engaged  in  a  conflict  of  this 
kind  with  the  British  Government  or  with  any  other  govern- 
ment on  earth,  peace  will  never  be  declared  upon  terms  leaving 
one  foot  of  territory  which  has  ever  been  consecrated  to  Amer- 
ican freedom  and  American  principles  afterward  to  be  pro- 
faned by  monarchical  or  despotic  principles.  No ;  Canada  may 
be  acquired;  I  do  not  dispute  that  position  of  gentlemen  who 
have  argued  this  proposition  before  the  House ;  but  that  Oregon 
will  ever  be  abandoned  peacefully,  or  in  the  struggle  of  war, 
my  mind  has  never  been  brought  to  that  conclusion,  nor  will  it 
be.  Sir,  upon  this  day,  this  memorable,  glorious  8th  of  Jan- 
uary,1 let  it  not  be  said  by  American  statesmen,  in  an  Amer- 
ican Congress,  that  this  Government  can  be  injured,  can  be 
deprived,  can  be  weakened  in  her  just  and  unquestionable  rights 
by  a  conflict  with  Great  Britain,  or  with  any  other  government. 
If  war  come,  I  venture  the  prediction  that  when  it  terminates 
we  will  have  the  consolation  of  knowing  that  not  a  British  flag 
floats  on  an  American  breeze ;  that  not  a  British  subject  treads 
on  American  soil.  There  is  where  war  ought  to  terminate,  if 
come  it  must;  there  is  where  I  believe  and  trust  in  Heaven  it 
will  terminate. 

Mr.  Hunter. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  appeal  to  all  candid  and 
reflecting  men  from  the  West — to  those  who  go  for  Oregon  and 
the  whole  of  Oregon — to  those  who  might  desire  war  for  Ore- 
gon, but  who  do  not  desire  Oregon  for  war — I  appeal  to  these 
men  to  let  this  controversy  remain  as  it  is.  Let  us  not  renew 
the  negotiation;  make  no  more  offers  to  Great  Britain;  but  let 
us  trust  to  the  process  of  colonization  now  so  rapidly  in  prog- 

1  The  anniversary  of  the  Battle  of  New  Orleans. 


330  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

ress,  and  we  shall  quietly,  peaceably,  and  certainly  obtain  the 
whole  of  what  we  claim.  I  care  not  how  glorious  the  war  may 
be,  it  would  be  better  to  avoid  it;  for  it  is  in  this  way  alone 
that  we  may  reasonably  hope  to  obtain  what  gentlemen  so  ar- 
dently desire — "the  whole  of  Oregon.' ' 

Sir,  the  making  of  any  treaty  fixing  a  boundary  would  be 
a  palpable  violation  of  the  very  principle  the  President  has  put 
forth  in  his  message.  Bearing  this  point  in  mind,  gentlemen 
will  easily  understand  the  meaning  of  the  President  in  all  his 
recommendations — when  he  said  that  no  compromise  of  this 
question  could  be  made  which  the  United  States  ought  to  accept 
— when  he  said  that  he  reasserted  our  claim  to  the  whole  con- 
tinent, and  maintained  it  by  irrefragable  facts  and  arguments — 
when  he  said  that  the  notice  must  be  given  and  the  exclusive 
possession  regained — when  he  said  our  laws  must  be  extended 
there — when  he  said  that  at  the  end  of  the  year  the  time  would 
have  arrived  when  we  must  either  maintain  our  claim  or  aban- 
don the  whole  of  it. 

But  gentlemen  say  we  must  not  assert  this  broad  doctrine — 
this  principle  of  American  independence  of  all  European  crowns 
— because  they  say  it  will  lead  to  war.  Well,  sir,  I  know  not 
nor  care  whether  it  will  produce  war  or  not ;  although  I  am  not 
for  war,  I  prefer  war  to  the  abandonment  of  duty  and  honor. 
Did  our  forefathers  abandon  their  resistance  to  the  Stamp  Act 
because  it  would  lead  to  war?  There  was  a  panic  party  in  the 
country  then  as  now — a  peace  party;  but  the  patriots  did  not 
abandon  their  resistance.  They  stopped  only  to  inquire  as  to  the 
question  of  right:  "Does  our  duty  to  ourselves  and  to  our 
country  require  us  to  do  it?  and,  if  so,  we  will  do  it  at  the 
hazard  of  life,  property,  and  sacred  honor."  That  was  the 
principle  that  animated  them. 

Sir,  at  a  later  period  the  States  of  this  country  did  not 
abandon  the  embargo  because  it  would  lead  to  war.  They  did 
not  relinquish  their  opposition  to  the  impressment  of  American 
seamen  because  it  would  lead  to  war.  At  a  later  date  they  did 
not  falter  on  the  French  indemnity  because  it  would  lead  to 
war;  nor  upon  the  right  of  search,  nor  at  a  still  later  day  on 
the  Texas  annexation.  Sir,  the  war  argument,  the  war  panic — 
that  stereotyped  argument  of  all  men  that  predicate  their  action 
upon  the  timidity  of  the  people — their  war  argument  was  used 
then  as  it  is  now.  The  only  question,  then,  for  us  to  determine 
is,  as  our  forefathers  did,  Is  this  policy  right,  Have  we  the 
right  to  maintain  it?  If  we  have  the  right,  it  is  our  duty  to 
maintain  it  at  the  hazard  of  war :   First,  sir,  in  demanding  and 


THE    OREGON    BOUNDARY  331 

obtaining  exclusive  possession  of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia 
river,  as  a  peace  measure  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent ;  second,  in 
refraining  from  all  and  any  negotiation  about  title  until  our 
possession  shall  be  restored;  and,  thirdly,  in  maintaining  this 
position  of  undying,  unyielding  opposition  to  any  future  Euro- 
pean colonization  on  the  American  continent.  Do  this  firmly, 
boldly,  unitedly,  and  let  the  consequences,  sir,  take  care  of 
themselves. 

Mr.  Davis. — It  is  as  the  representative  of  a  high-spirited 
and  patriotic  people  that  I  am  called  on  to  resist  this  war 
clamor.  My  constituents  need  no  such  excitements  to  prepare 
their  hearts  for  all  that  patriotism  demands.  Whenever  the 
honor  of  the  country  demands  redress,  whenever  its  territory 
is  invaded,  if  then  it  shall  be  sought  to  intimidate  by  the  fiery 
cross  of  St.  George — if  then  we  are  threatened  with  the  unfold- 
ing of  English  banners  if  we  resent  or  resist,  from  the  gulf 
shore  to  the  banks  of  that  great  river  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth,  Mississippi  will  come  down  to  the  foe  like  a  stream 
from  the  rock.  And  whether  the  question  be  one  of  Northern 
or  Southern,  of  Eastern  or  Western  aggression,  we  will  not 
stop  to  count  the  cost,  but  act  as  becomes  the  descendants  of 
those  who,  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  engaged  in  unequal 
strife  to  aid  our  brethren  of  the  North  in  redressing  their 
injuries. 

Sir,  when  ignorance  and  fanatic  hatred  assail  our  domestic 
institutions,  we  try  to  forgive  them  for  the  sake  of  the  righteous 
among  the  wicked — our  natural  allies,  the  Democracy  of  the 
North.  We  turn  from  present  hostility  to  former  friendship — 
from  recent  defection  to  the  time  when  Massachusetts  and  Vir- 
ginia, the  stronger  brothers  of  our  family,  stood  foremost  and 
united  to  defend  our  common  rights.  From  sire  to  son  has 
descended  the  love  of  our  Union  in  our  hearts,  as  in  our  history 
are  mingled  the  names  of  Concord  and  Camden,  of  Yorktown 
and  Saratoga,  of  Moultrie  and  Plattsburg,  of  Chippewa  and 
Erie,  of  Bowyer  and  Guilford,  and  New  Orleans  and  Bunker 
Hill.  Grouped  together,  they  form  a  monument  to  the  com- 
mon glory  of  our  common  country.  And  where  is  the  Southern 
man  who  would  wish  that  monument  were  less  by  one  of  the 
Northern  names  that  constitute  the  mass?  Who,  standing  on 
the  ground  made  sacred  by  the  blood  of  Warren,  could  allow 
sectional  feeling  to  curb  his  enthusiasm  as  he  looked  upon  that 
obelisk,1  which  rises  a  monument  to  freedom's  and  his  country's 
triumph,  and  stands  a  type  of  the  time,  the  men,  and  the  event 

xThe  Bunker  Hill  Monument. 


332  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

that  it  commemorates,  built  of  material  that  mocks  the  waves 
of  time,  without  niche  or  molding  for  parasite  or  creeping 
thing  to  rest  on,  and  pointing  like  a  finger  to  the  sky  to  raise 
man's  thoughts  to  philanthropic  and  noble  deeds. 

On  April  23,  1846,  both  Houses  agreed  to  a  new 
resolution  (which  was  inspired  by  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment) authorizing  the  President,  while  giving  the 
notice,  to  continue  negotiations.  The  reason  for  this 
amendment  transpired  on  June  6,  1846,  when  the  British 
Ambassador,  Richard  Pakenham,  offered  to  accept  the 
line  of  49  degrees  north  latitude  clear  to  salt  water. 
The  President,  desirous  of  accepting  this  offer,  but  un- 
willing to  take  the  responsibility  for  receding  from  his 
demand  of  54  degrees  40  minutes  as  the  boundary,  left 
the  decision  to  the  Senate,  the  majority  in  which  was 
Whig.  To  the  credit  of  the  opposition  it  must  be  said 
that,  while  realizing  the  purpose  of  the  President,  they 
acted  as  patriots  rather  than  partisans,  and  advised 
acceptance.  The  treaty  was  ratified  accordingly  at 
London  on  July  17,  1846. 


CHAPTER  Xn 
The  Mexican  Wab 

William  C.  Preston  [S.  C]  Introduces  in  the  Senate  a  Eesolution  for  the 
Annexation  of  Texas;  It  Is  Tabled — John  C.  Calhoun,  Secretary  of 
State,  Concludes  Annexation  Treaty  with  Texas — It  Is  Eejected  by  the 
Senate — Slavery  and  Texas  as  Issues  in  the  Polk-Clay  Presidential  Cam- 
paign— Annexation  Bill  Introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Thomas  H.  Benton 
[Mo.];  and  in  the  House  by  Charles  J.  Ingersoll  [Pa.]— Tilt  in  the 
Senate  Between  George  McDuffie  [S.  C]  and  John  J.  Crittenden  [Ky.] 
on  Power  of  Congress  to  Make  War  or  Peace — Debate  in  the  House  on 
the  Ingersoll  Bill:  in  Favor,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  Stephen  A.  Douglas  [111.]; 
Opposed,  Robert  C.  Winthrop  [Mass.],  John  Quincy  Adams  [Mass.]; 
Bill  Is  Passed  by  Both  Houses  and  Approved  by  the  President— Out- 
break of  Hostilities — President  James  K.  Polk's  War  Message — Bill  Is 
Introduced  in  the  Senate  Providing  for  the  Prosecution  of  the  Existing 
War — Debate:  in  Favor,  General  Samuel  Houston  [Tex.],  Lewis  Cass 
[Mich.];  Opposed,  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C],  John  M.  Berrien  [Ga.], 
James  D.  Westcott  [Fla.],  Senator  Crittenden — Mr.  Douglas  Introduces 
Bill  in  the  House  to  Admit  Texas  into  the.  Union;  in  Favor,  Mr. 
Douglas;  Opposed,  Julius  Rockwell  [Mass.];  Carried;  Debate  in  the 
Senate:  in  Favor,  Senator  Berrien;  Opposed,  Daniel  Webster  [Mass.]; 
Carried — Bill  Is  Introduced  in  the  House  Making  Appropriations  for 
Soldiers  at  the  Front — Debate:  Advocates  of  the  War,  Mr.  Douglas, 
J.  H.  Lumpkin  [Ga.] ;  Opponents,  Joshua  R.  Giddings  [O.],  Columbus 
Delano  [O.],  John  W.  Houston  [Del.],  John  Quincy  Adams  [Mass.], 
Robert  Toombs  [Ga.] — Treaty  of  Peace — Speech  of  Senator  Thomas 
Corwin  [O.]  Against  the  War — Tilt  Between  Senators  Thomas  H.  Ben- 
ton [Mo.]  and  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C]  on  "Who  Is  Responsible  for  the 
War?" — Abraham  Lincoln  [111.]  Introduces  in  the  House  His  "Spot 
Resolutions":  His  Arraignment  of  President  Polk — Treaty  of  Peace. 

EVER  since  the  treaty  with  Spain,  whereby  the 
United  States  had  acquired  ownership  of  Florida 
at  the  cost,  among  other  considerations,  of  fore- 
going all  disputed  claims  to  Texas  arising  from  the 
Louisiana  Purchase,  this  country  had  looked  with 
covetous  eyes  upon  the  relinquished  territory.  In  1827 
and  1829  the   Secretaries  of   State,  Henry  Clay  and 

333 


334  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Martin  Van  Buren  respectively,  had  made  cash  offers  for 
it  to  Mexico,  $1,000,000  in  the  former  case,  and  $5,000,- 
000  in  the  latter,  but  these  were  refused.  All  the  while 
the  province  was  being  settled  by  Americans  who  were 
desirous  of  its  annexation  to  this  country.  Owing  to 
their  agitation,  Texas,  on  March  4,  1836,  declared  its 
independence  from  Mexico,  and  virtually  achieved  it  in 
a  brief  war  ending  with  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto,  April 
10,  in  which  General  Samuel  Houston,  leader  of  the 
revolutionists,  defeated  and  captured  Santa  Anna,  the 
Mexican  general,  who  obtained  his  freedom  by  signing 
a  treaty  acknowledging  the  independence — a  convention, 
however,  which  the  Mexican  Government  repudiated. 
The  United  States  recognized  the  new  republic  in 
March,  1837,  thus  giving  Mexico  a  cause  of  grievance 
against  this  country. 

In  August,  1837,  Texas  applied  for  admission  into 
the  Union,  and  during  the  special  session  beginning  in 
the  following  month  William  C.  Preston  (South 
Carolina)  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  resolution  to  this 
effect  which  was  tabled  by  a  vote  of  24  to  14.  From 
this  time  until  the  annexation  was  accomplished  in 
December,  1845,  the  subject  became  a  political  issue, 
and  a  disturbing  one  in  that  it  was  connected  with  the 
agitation  on  the  slavery  question,  since  the  South  desired 
the  annexation,  and  the  North  opposed  it  because  it 
would  greatly  increase  the  extent  of  slave  territory, 
Texas  having  permitted  slavery  within  its  borders,  from 
which  it  had  been  excluded  while  the  country  was  a 
part  of  Mexico. 

An  annexation  treaty  was  concluded  on  April  12, 1844, 
by  John  C.  Calhoun,  Secretary  of  State,  but  it  was 
rejected  by  the  Senate,  16  ayes  to  35  nays.  The  adop- 
tion of  this  treaty  would  have  precipitated  war  with 
Mexico  for  the  same  reason  that  the  subsequent  annexa- 
tion did  so,  namely,  because  it  fixed  the  southwestern 
boundary  of  Texas  at  the  Eio  Grande  del  Norte  instead 
of  at  the  Rio  Nueces,  Mexico  claiming  the  intervening 
region. 

While  the  question  was  in  suspense  the  Texan  au- 
thorities, in  order  to  promote  an  early  and  favorable 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR 


335 


decision,  distributed  throughout  the  Southern  States  a 
vast  number  of  land  warrants  which  converted  their 
recipients  into  ardent  annexationists.  The  Southern 
politicians  were  appealed  to  on  the  ground  that  a  number 
of  new  States  could  be  carved  out  of  the  territory,  all 
of  which  would  naturally  enter  the  Union  with  slavery, 
and  so  preserve  between  the  sections  the  balance  of 


CLEANSING   THE   AUGEAN    STABLE 

[1844  ] 
From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 

power  which  was  in  danger  of  inclining  toward  the  North 
in  the  admission  of  free  States. 

During  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1844,  while  the 
Democrats  minimized  in  the  North  the  issue  of  Texan 
annexation,  and  strove  to  outbid  the  Whigs  in  a  de- 
mand for  the  assertion  of  the  Oregon  claims,  in  the 
South  annexation  was  the  sole  issue,  and  the  now 
familiar  threat  of  "Disunion' '  if  the  demands  of  the 
section  were  not  granted  was  again  raised. 

The  Northern  statesmen  were  afraid  of  annexation, 
fearing  that  it  would  bring  forward  slavery  as  a  para- 
mount issue  and  cause  a  new  political  alignment  in  which 
other   men   than   themselves    would   make   themselves 


336  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

leaders.  Accordingly,  when  the  question  was  put 
directly  to  them,  Martin  Van  Buren  and  Henry  Clay, 
the  leading  aspirants  of  the  Democratic  and  "Whig 
parties  respectively,  for  the  nomination  for  the  presi- 
dency, declared  themselves  against  the  annexation.  This 
rendered  certain  the  nomination  of  Clay,  since  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Whigs  were  opposed  to  the  admission  of 
more  slave  States,  and  it  laid  the  basis  for  the  loss  of 
the  nomination  to  Van  Buren,  since  his  Southern  op- 
ponents, preliminary  to  the  ballot  in  the  Democratic 
convention  held  May  17,  1844,  secured  the  passage  of 
the  two-thirds  rule  (which  has  been  maintained  ever 
since  in  Democratic  conventions),  and  thus,  although 
in  the  minority,  by  uniting  on  a  Southern  annexa- 
tionist, James  K.  Polk  of  Tennessee,  and  standing  reso- 
lutely for  him,  finally  secured  his  nomination.  For  Vice- 
President  the  Whigs  nominated  Frederick  T.  Freyling- 
huysen  (New  Jersey),  and  the  Democrats  George  M. 
Dallas  (Pennsylvania).  Both  parties  declared  for  as- 
serting the  Oregon  claims.  Polk  and  Dallas  were  elected 
over  Clay  and  Frelinghuysen  by  a  vote  of  170  to  105. 
The  Whig  candidate  would  have  been  victorious  had 
it  not  been  for  the  increase  in  strength  of  the  "Liberty 
Party, ' '  an  Abolition  party  which  had  come  into  existence 
in  the  preceding  presidential  campaign,  casting  a  negli- 
gible vote  of  7,059  for  James  G.  Birney  of  Kentucky  and 
Francis  J.  Lemoyne  of  Pennsylvania  (both  of  whom 
had  declined  the  nomination).  It  now,  however,  cast 
a  vote  of  62,300  for  Birney  and  Thomas  Morris  (Ohio), 
drawn  almost  wholly  from  the  Whigs,  and  decided  the 
electoral  vote  of  New  York  (36)  and  Michigan  (5)  in 
favor  of  Polk  and  Dallas,  who  otherwise  would  have  re- 
ceived 129  to  146  votes  cast  for  Clay  and  Freylinghuysen. 
The  annexation  of  Texas,  which  quickly  followed  the 
election,  forced  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  front  of 
its  abolition  as  a  practical  question,  and  gave  rise  to  a 
Free  Soil  party,  with  which  the  Abolitionists  thereafter 
wisely  cooperated,  voting  for  its  tickets  in  the  next  two 
presidential  elections. 

On  June  10,  1844,  Thomas  H.  Benton  (Missouri)  in- 
troduced in  the  Senate  a  bill  to  annex  Texas,  which 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  337 

provided  for  a  division  of  the  acquired  territory  with 
four  States,  two  in  the  South  to  enter  the  Union  with 
slavery,  and  two  in  the  North  without  it.  It  also  pro- 
vided for  a  conference  with  Mexico  on  the  subject  of 
the  boundary,  although,  if  this  could  not  be  amicably 
adjusted,  Congress,  and  not  the  President,  was  em- 
powered to  annex  Texas  without  Mexico's  assent.  By 
such  a  course,  said  Benton,  "if  the  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion brings  war,  we  shall  at  least  have  the  consolation 
to  know  that  it  comes  constitutionally ;  that  it  is  brought 
upon  us  by  the  authority  that  has  the  constitutional 
right  to  make  war,  and  not  by  the  unconstitutional  act 
of  the  President  and  Senate,  or  President  alone.' ' 

This  bill  had  been  introduced  with  no  hope  of  its 
passage,  but  for  the  purpose  of  providing  material  in 
the  pending  presidential  campaign. 

Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress, Senator  Benton  reintroduced  his  annexation  bill 
in  the  Senate,  and  Charles  J.  Ingersoll  (Pennsylvania) 
introduced  in  the  House  a  joint  resolution  of  the  Senate 
and  House  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  its  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  "as  soon  as  may  be  consistent  with 
the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution." 

This  superseded  the  Benton  bill  in  the  Senate,  and 
on  February  26,  1845,  was  passed  there  by  a  vote  of 
27  to  25.  On  February  28  the  House  passed  the  joint 
resolution  by  a  vote  of  132  to  76.  The  President  signed 
the  act  on  March  1. 

In  December,  1845,  Texas  was  formally  admitted  into 
the  Union. 

Peace  by  Non-Eesistance 

In  the  debate  in  the  Senate  the  discussion  hinged 
largely  on  the  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  de- 
clare war  or  make  peace,  since  the  passage  of  the  joint 
resolution  would  almost  certainly  lead  to  war  with 
Mexico.  George  McDuffie  (South  Carolina)  asserted 
that  Congress  had  this  power,  and  John  J.  Crittenderi 
(Kentucky)  denied  that  it  had,  saying  that  this  was  ai 
part  of  the  treaty-making  power  which  vested  in  the 


338  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Executive  and  the  Senate  jointly.    An  amusing  colloquy 
occurred  between  the  two  on  this  point. 

Senator  Crittenden  asked:  Where  was  the  power  of  mak- 
ing peace  given  to  Congress  by  the  Constitution?  Would  the 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  tell  him  how  Congress  could  make 
peace  ? 

Mr.  McDuffie. — Yes,  sir:  by  disbanding  the  army  and 
navy.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Crittenden. — That  would  not  stop  the  war. 

Mr.  McDuffie. — I  do  not  presume  the  Executive  and  Sen- 
ate would  undertake  to  carry  on  the  war  after  Congress  dis- 
banded the  army  and  navy. 

Mr.  Crittenden. — No,  sir ;  but  it  would  be  a  very  good  time 
for  the  enemy  to  carry  on  the  war.     [Great  laughter.] 

A  few  days  later  Senator  McDuffie,  who,  it  would 
seem,  had  an  overweening  sense  of  personal  dignity  and 
a  lamentable  lack  of  the  sense  of  humor,  wrote  to  the 
editor  of  the  (Washington)  Globe,  which  had  reported 
the  colloquy,  a  long  letter,  intended  for  publication,  in 
which  he  attempted  to  set  himself  right  in  the  matter. 

In  the  debate  in  the  House  the  chief  speakers  in 
favor  of  annexation  were  Mr.  Ingersoll,  the  mover  of 
the  resolutions,  and  Stephen  A.  Douglas  (Illinois) ;  and 
the  chief  opponents,  Robert  C.  Winthrop  (Massa- 
chusetts) and  John  Quincy  Adams  (Massachusetts). 

The  Annexation  of  Texas 

House  of  Eepresentatives,  January  3-February  28,  1845 

Mr.  Ingersoll. — Like  that  of  Maine,  the  Texas  question  is 
national;  and  national  considerations  should  prevail  in  the  lat- 
ter as  they  did  in  the  former,  when  the  Union,  south,  and  west, 
and  central,  sustained  the  Northeast  in  its  plan  of  settlement. 
It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  Southern  interests,  Southern 
frontiers,  Southern  institutions — I  mean  slavery  and  all — are 
to  be  primarily  regarded  in  settling  the  restoration  of  Texas. 
It  is  a  Texas  question  and  a  Southern  question.  If  Southern 
Secretaries  of  State — one  of  whom  originated  and  another  is 
striving  to  consummate  the  affair1 — betray  Southern  partialities 

1  John  Forsyth  [Ga.],  Secretary  of  State  under  Van  Buren,  inspired  the 
Preston  annexation  bill  of  1837,  and  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C],  the  present 
Secretary,  had  made  annexation  his  foremost  policy. 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  339 

which  many  of  us  may  deem  not  quite  national,  that  is  no  reason 
why  a  great  national  measure  should  not  be  effected  on  great 
national  considerations.  So,  if  our  minister  to  Mexico  dis- 
cuss the  matter  with  the  Mexican  authorities  in  a  tone  or  temper 
which  we  may  not  approve,  that  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  the 
affair  itself  should  be  frustrated.  We  must  regard  the  merits 
and  substance  of  the  measure,  and  negotiation  concerning  it, 
without  being  prejudiced  or  prevented  by  the  mere  manner  of 
dealing  with  them. 

Mb.  Winthrop  said:  One  of  the  greatest  complaints  made 
by  our  fathers  of  the  Revolution  against  the  British  Govern- 
ment was  that  it  considered  slavery  a  good  and  a  blessing;  that 
it  had  refused  its  assent  to  acts  of  the  Colonies  for  its  suppres- 
sion; that  it  reprimanded  the  Governor  of  South  Carolina  for 
having  given  his  assent  to  one  of  those  acts.  It  seemed  to  him 
that  arguments  on  this  question  more  particularly  belonged  to 
those  who  maintained  the  affirmative  of  the  proposition,  and 
not  to  those  who  were  opposed  to  it.  It  was  for  those  who  con- 
templated so  momentous  a  change  in  our  system — who  were  for 
running  off  for  foreign  lands  and  foreign  alliances — it  was  for 
those  who  sought  to  jeopard  the  peace  and  union  of  the  coun- 
try, in  order  to  find  a  more  ample  theater  for  their  transcen- 
dental patriotism,  to  furnish  arguments  to  sustain  them.  It 
was  for  them  to  make  out  their  case.  It  was  for  them  to  show 
the  policy  of  the  act,  and  to  point  out  the  precise  terms  in 
which  it  was  to  be  consummated.  For  us  (said  Mr.  W.),  who 
desire  no  change,  who  are  content  with  the  country  as  it  is,  and 
with  the  Constitution  as  it  is — whose  whole  policy  looked  to  the 
aggrandizement  of  the  country  by  internal  developments,  and 
not  by  foreign  acquisitions,  we  want  no  arguments.  It  is  only 
necessary  for  us  to  content  ourselves  by  sitting  quietly  in  our 
seats  and  answer,  as  the  old  barons  of  England  did,  nolumus 
leges  Anglice  mutari.1  Sir  (said  Mr.  W.)  we  have  the  Constitu- 
tion. That  Constitution  is  one  of  limited  powers  and  of  specific 
grants  of  power.  That  Constitution  contains  the  clause  that  the 
powers  therein  enumerated  shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or 
disparage  others  retained  by  the  people;  and  it  also  contained 
the  clause  that  the  powers  not  thereby  granted  are  reserved  to 
the  States  or  to  the  people. 

Now  it  was  for  those  who  contended  for  the  annexation  of  a 
foreign  territory  to  show  that  the  power  they  attempt  to  exer- 
cise is  contained  in  the  grant.  He  was  not  at  all  astonished 
that  the  friends  of  this  measure  should  have  desired  to  throw 

1  ( *  We  are  unwilling  that  the  laws  of  England  be  changed. ; ' 


340  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

off  the  load  of  argument  from  their  own  shoulders  and  impose 
it  on  their  opponents.  Having  tried  all  the  means  in  their 
power  of  reconciling  the  difficulties  among  themselves  in  regard 
to  the  accomplishment  of  this  measure ;  having  tried  the  ultima 
ratio  1  of  a  letter  from  the  Hermitage  in  vain,  the  old  Roman 
cement  having  lost  its  binding  force,  their  last  hopes  were  that 
the  blows  of  their  enemies  might,  more  successfully  than  the 
love  pats  of  their  friends,  knock  their  project  into  some  shape 
that  would  render  it  acceptable  to  all.  It  seemed  to  be  sup- 
posed by  them  that  some  anti-slavery  feeling  would  manifest 
itself  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  in  such  sudden  and  violent 
outbursts  as  to  compel  certain  Southern  members  to  give  their 
votes  for  this  measure,  or  their  States  to  send  other  members 
here  in  their  places  next  session  who  would  be  more  complai- 
sant. For  himself,  he  was  not  disposed  to  minister  to  this 
feeling.  Though  he  had  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  one  of  the 
grounds  of  his  opposition  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  that 
it  would  result  in  the  extension  of  slavery,  and,  if  his  hour  held 
out,  he  should  treat  it  in  connection  with  the  question  of  slav- 
ery, yet  he  would  do  it  in  entire  deference  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  he  was  sworn  to  support.  He 
should  do  it  with  the  entire  admission,  which  no  Northern 
statesman  has  ever  withheld,  that  so  far  as  slavery  exists  in  the 
States  of  the  Union,  this  Government  had  no  right  whatever 
to  interfere. 

It  was  impossible  for  him  to  realize  the  fact  that  this  subject 
was  actually  before  the  House  for  discussion.  The  introduction 
of  a  vast  foreign  nation  into  our  boundaries — the  naturaliza- 
tion of  some  thousands  of  Texans,  as  well  as  Mexicans — the 
introduction  of  25,000  slaves  into  the  Union  in  defiance  of  the 
Constitution,  which  prohibits  it — the  admission  of  a  territory 
not  only  of  a  size  sufficient  to  create  two  or  three  new  States, 
but  of  a  capacity  to  disturb  the  orbits  of  all  the  other  stars 
and  drive  them  into  a  new  center  toward  other  suns,  and  all 
this,  too,  by  one  simple  act  of  legislation,  was  a  thing  so  mon- 
strous as  almost  to  exceed  belief.  What  was  it?  It  was  a 
measure  devised  by  a  Chief  Magistrate 2  who  was  not  the  choice 
of  the  people,  but  who  was  the  Chief  Magistrate  by  accident, 
for  his  own  ambitious  views.  It  was  rejected  by  the  Senate, 
after  mature  deliberation  and  a  thorough  discussion;  and  it 
was  now  brought  forward,  after  an  hour's  consultation  in  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  and  was  to  be  passed  with  as 

14 'Last  resort";  the  reference  to  ex-President  Jackson. 

2  President  Tyler. 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  341 

little  consideration  as  was  ordinarily  bestowed  on  an  act  to 
grant  a  salary  or  create  an  office. 

The  whole  of  the  scheme  was  unconstitutional  in  substance 
and  in  form;  it  was  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  was  a 
violation  of  the  good  faith  of  our  own  country;  and,  in  his 
judgment,  it  was  eminently  calculated  to  involve  this  country 
in  an  unjust  and  dishonorable  war.  He  also  objected  to  it  on 
account  of  its  relation  with  domestic  slavery.  He  was  one  of 
those  who  utterly  denied  the  authority  of  this  Government  to 
annex  a  foreign  State  to  this  Government  by  any  process  short 
of  an  appeal  to  the  people  in  the  form  which  the  Constitution 
prescribed  for  its  amendment. 

Mr.  Douglas. — The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  had  been 
pleased  to  tell  them  that  it  had  been  devised  by  a  President  of 
the  United  States  not  elected  by  the  people.  Mr.  D.  denied 
that  the  accidental  President  of  the  United  States  had  the  credit 
of  originating  the  project  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the 
Union.  The  honorable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Adams]  could  assert  a  claim  to  that  honor,  founded  on  the  fact 
that  when  President  of  the  United  States,  in  1825,  he  and  his 
secretary  [Mr.  Clay]  proposed  to  annex  Texas  to  this  Union, 
and  offered  millions  of  dollars  in  order  to  secure  this  valuable 
acquisition.  It  was  possible,  inasmuch  as  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Adams]  did  originate  the  measure,  that  his 
colleague  [Mr.  Winthrop]  had  referred  to  him  [laughter]  when 
he  had  said  that  the  scheme  was  originated  by  a  President  not 
elected  by  the  people.  [Renewed  laughter.]1  Those  who  were 
opposed  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  seemed  to  have  adopted  the 
plan  of  raising  up  objections,  of  suggesting  difficulties,  and  of 
keeping  the  friends  of  the  measure  employed  in  removing  them, 
so  that  they  would  be  prevented  from  going  into  the  main  ques- 
tion. They  had  found  that  the  people  were  against  them  on 
that  subject  and  that  they  had  expressed  their  will  more 
unequivocally  in  favor  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  than  on 
any  of  the  issues  that  were  presented  for  their  consideration. 
They  therefore  were  reluctant  to  argue  the  question  on  its 
merits,  and  preferred  a  discussion  on  collateral  issues. 

He  agreed  with  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  that,  if 
we  annexed  Texas  to  the  Union,  it  must  be  done  consistently 
with  the  Constitution,  and  he  was  satisfied  that  Congress  had 
the  constitutional  power  to  do  it.     In  regard  to  the  power  to 

1  Adams  had  been  elected  by  Congress,  although  Jackson  had  received 
more  electoral  votes. 


342  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

annex  foreign  territory  to  the  Union,  he  had  only  to  call  the 
attention  of  gentlemen  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  articles  of  the 
old  confederation,  there  was  a  proviso  that  Canada  might  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  matter  of  right,  whenever  she 
asked  it,  and  that  any  other  colony  might  be  admitted  with  the 
consent  of  nine  States.  What  other  colonies  were  alluded  to? 
The  old  thirteen  States  were  included  in  the  confederacy,  and 
therefore  none  of  them  could  have  been  alluded  to.  But  gentle- 
men said  that  the  colonies  of  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick 
were  alluded  to,  but  he  would  ask  if  Florida  could  not 
have  been  admitted  under  that  article.  It  certainly  was 
the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  confederacy  to  ad- 
mit foreign  states  into  the  Union  if  they  could  get  nine 
States  to  vote  for  it.  Mr.  Douglas  went  on  to  show  that, 
after  the  confederacy,  the  power  of  admitting  foreign  states 
into  the  Union  was  not  restricted  by  the  Constitution,  but  en- 
larged by  it.  Propositions  to  restrict  the  admission  of  foreign 
states  into  the  Union  were  made  in  the  convention  which  framed 
the  Constitution,  and  were  rejected;  after  which  the  conven- 
tion adopted  the  clause  giving  Congress  the  power  of  admitting 
new  States  into  the  Union.  What  else  did  they  do?  They 
struck  out  the  proviso  requiring  the  assent  of  nine  States  for 
the  admission  of  new  states,  and  inserted  the  proviso  that  Con- 
gress might  do  it.  They  also  voted  down  the  proviso  requiring 
two-thirds,  and  provided  that  Congress  might  do  it  by  the 
votes  of  a  majority.  Mr.  D.  then  referred  to  the  treaties  of 
Louisiana  and  Florida  to  show  the  power  of  Congress  to  ac- 
quire foreign  territory,  and  to  the  admission  of  Louisiana,  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  into  the  Union,  to  show  the  power  of  Congress  to 
admit  territory  so  acquired  into  the  Union  as  States.  Mr.  D. 
then  went  into  an  explanation  of  the  powers  of  Congress  to 
pass  such  laws  as  are  necessary  to  carry  the  powers  given  by  the 
Constitution  into  effect,  drawing  a  distinction  between  the 
grounds  of  indispensable  necessity,  as  held  by  the  Democratic 
party,  and  the  latitudinarian  doctrine  of  convenience  and  expe- 
diency, as  held  by  their  opponents.  It  was  on  the  former 
grounds,  he  said,  that  he  contended  for  the  constitutionality  of 
the  admission  of  Texas. 

Mb.  Adams  referred  to  the  argument  that  Texas  was  com- 
prehended in  the  territory  ceded  by  the  Louisiana  treaty,  and 
therefore  the  United  States  were  bound  by  the  terms  of  that 
treaty  to  admit  them  into  the  Union,  contending  that  Texas 
was  not  included  in  that  territory.  He  also  referred  to  the 
assertion  that  he  was  the  first  who  originated  the  idea  of 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  343 

annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  for  that  in  1825,  during 
his  presidency,  he  made  overtures  to  Mexico  for  the  acquisition 
of  that  territory.  He  admitted  this  to  be  true.  He  did  make 
overtures  to  Mexico  for  the  acquisition  of  Texas;  but  there  was 
a  slight  difference  between  his  action  on  that  subject  and  that 
now  contemplated,  which  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  had  over- 
looked. He  had  proposed  to  purchase  Texas  with  the  consent 
of  its  owner;  but  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  proposed  now 
to  take  it  without  the  owner's  consent.  There  was  the  same 
difference  between  his  action  and  that  now  contemplated  as 
there  was  between  purchase  and  burglary.  Further,  when  he 
proposed  to  purchase  Texas  of  Mexico,  slavery  did  not  exist 
there,  and  he  proposed  to  take  it  without  slavery,  which  he  was 
willing  to  do  now,  with  the  consent  of  Mexico. 

In  all  the  treaties  for  the  acquisition  of  territory  it  was 
not  the  acquisition  of  territory  which  constituted  the  power  not 
within  the  Constitution,  it  was  the  bearing  on  the  people  of 
the  territory  acquired.  "We  could  acquire  territory;  territory 
was  inanimate — it  was  matter.  Man  was  an  immortal  soul; 
man  had  rights  peculiar  to  himself;  and  they  could  not,  with- 
out his  consent,  transfer  man  from  one  country  to  another. 
There  was  no  such  power ;  it  could  not  be  conferred.  That  was 
his  opinion,  and  he  expressed  it  in  the  case  of  the  Louisiana 
treaty.  He  maintained  it  then;  he  conversed  particularly  with 
Mr.  Madison  on  the  subject.  He  [Mr.  M.]  agreed  with  him 
on  that  point.  He  [Mr.  A.]  showed  Mr.  Madison  a  proposition 
of  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  a 
paper  in  order  to  take  the  vote  of  the  people  of  Louisiana  on 
that  treaty.  When  they  annexed  foreign  territory  to  this  coun- 
try they  dissolved  our  Union;  the  Union  was  dissolved.  We 
might  form  another;  but  the  people  of  a  nation,  the  immortal 
mind,  could  not  form  a  political  union  with  another  people 
without  their  own  consent.  This  was  his  doctrine  then ;  it  was 
his  doctrine  now;  and  nothing  on  earth  but  the  precedent 
which  was  settled  against  him  could  be  adduced  against  it.  If 
a  man  had  rights,  what  were  they  f  Were  they  not  to  live  under 
the  government  of  his  own  choice,  and  to  refuse  or  consent  to 
the  terms  by  which  he  was  made  a  part  of  a  community  to 
which  he  did  not  belong?  In  the  acquisition  of  territory  was 
included  the  disposal  of  human  rights.  It  was  not  a  subject 
of  treaty ;  or,  if  it  was  a  subject  of  treaty,  it  was  between  the 
sovereign  powers  who  were  the  first  principals,  viz.,  between 
the  people;  and  that  was  what  he  had  proposed  in  the  case  of 
Louisiana. 


344 


GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 


Outbreak  of  Hostilities 

President  Polk,  in  his  first  message  to  Congress 
(December,  1845),  had  announced  that  the  "  accession 
(of  Texas)  to  our  territory  has  been  a  bloodless  achieve- 
ment.^ But  it  was  not  to  remain  so  long.  On  March 
12,  1846,  General  Zachary  Taylor,  in  command  of  reg- 


THE   MEXICAN   RULERS 

Migrating  from  Matamoras  with  their  Treasures 
From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 

ular  troops  stationed  on  the  border  of  the  territory  be- 
tween the  Rio  Nueces  and  Rio  Grande  del  Norte,  ad- 
vanced under  orders  into  this  disputed  region.  On  April 
25  a  reconnoitering  squadron  of  American  dragoons  was 
surrounded  and  captured  by  a  superior  force  of  Mexican 
cavalry,  one  officer  and  eight  men  of  the  Americans  being 
killed.  On  May  8  General  Taylor,  with  his  entire  force 
(2,300),  met  the  Mexican  General,  Arista,  with  6,000 
men  and  defeated  him  at  Palo  Alto ;  following  after  the 
retreating  foe  on  the  next  day  Taylor  completely  routed 
him  at  Resaca  de  la  Palma,  and  drove  him  across  the 
Rio  Grande. 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  345 

On  May  11  President  Polk  sent  to  Congress  a  war 
message  in  which  he  enumerated  various  wrongs  com- 
mitted by  Mexico  against  the  United  States  and  its 
citizens  during  the  period  of  differences  between  Mexico 
and  Texas  and,  ignoring  Mexico's  reasonable  claim  to 
the  territory  invaded  by  General  Taylor,  asserted  that 
"Mexico  had  passed  the  boundary  of  the  United  States 
and  shed  American  blood  on  American  soil."  On  the 
following  day  the  Senate  passed  an  act  "  providing  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  existing  war  between  the  United 
States  and  Mexico,' '  the  preamble  of  which  asserted,  as 
the  title  assumed,  that  a  state  of  war  obtained  between 
the  two  countries.  On  the  question  of  whether  this  was 
in  accordance  with  fact,  and  the  proper  attitude  for  the 
United  States  Government  to  assume,  or  the  situation 
required  that  a  formal  declaration  of  war  be  made,  a 
spirited  debate  took  place  in  the  Senate  in  which  the 
supporters  of  the  resolution  were  General  Samuel 
Houston  (Texas)  and  Lewis  Cass  (Michigan),  and  its 
opponents  were  John  C.  Calhoun  (South  Carolina), 
John  M.  Berrien  (Georgia),  James  D.  Wescott  (Florida), 
and  John  J.  Crittenden  (Kentucky). 


The  Act  of  Wab 
Senate,  May  12.  1846 

Senator  Calhoun  said  that  he  was  prepared  to  vote  the 
supplies  on  the  spot  and  without  an  hour's  delay;  but  it  was 
just  as  impossible  for  him  to  vote  for  that  preamble  as  it  was 
for  him  to  plunge  a  dagger  into  his  own  heart,  and  more  so. 
He  could  not;  he  was  not  prepared  to  affirm  that  war  existed 
between  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  and  that  it  existed  by 
the  act  of  that  government.   ' 

As  to  what  might  be  said  on  such  a  course,  and  all  that  was 
called  popularity,  he  did  not  care  the  snap  of  his  fingers.  If 
he  could  not  stand  and  brave  so  small  a  danger,  he  should  be 
but  little  worthy  of  what  small  amount  of  reputation  he  might 
have  earned.  He  could  not  agree  to  make  war  on  Mexico  by 
making  war  on  the  Constitution;  and  the  Senate  would  make 
war  on  the  Constitution  by  declaring  war  to  exist  between  the 
two  governments  when  no  war  had  been  declared,  and  nothing 


346  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

had  occurred  but  a  slight  military  conflict  between  a  portion  of 
two  armies.  Yet  he  was  asked  to  affirm,  in  the  very  face  of  the 
Constitution,  that  a  local  recontre,  not  authorized  by  the  act  of 
either  government,  constituted  a  state  of  war  between  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Mexico  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States — 
to  say  that,  by  a  certain  military  movement  of  General  Taylor 
and  General  Arista,  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  was  made 
the  enemy  of  every  man  in  Mexico.  It  was  monstrous.  It 
stripped  Congress  of  the  power  of  making  war;  and,  what 
was  more  and  worse,  it  gave  that  power  to  every  officer,  nay, 
to  every  subaltern  commanding  a  corporal's  guard.  He  there- 
fore moved  that  the  bill  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary Affairs. 

The  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  20  yeas  to  26  nays,  refused 
the  reference. 

General  Houston. — Was  not  the  crossing  of  the  Rio  Grande 
by  the  Mexican  forces  of  itself  an  act  of  war?  Was  not  the 
entering  our  territory  by  an  armed  force  an  act  of  war  ?  How- 
ever the  decision  might  hereafter  be  in  regard  to  the  precise 
extent  of  our  territory,  the  Mexicans  knew  full  well  that  the 
river  had  been  assumed  as  the  boundary.  Up  to  the  time  of 
annexation  it  had  been  so  considered,  and,  more  than  that,  the 
Mexicans  had  never  once  established  a  military  encampment  on 
the  east  side  of  the  river;  it  had  never  been  held,  even  by 
themselves,  to  be  within  the  limits  of  Mexico,  otherwise  than 
upon  the  ridiculous  ground  of  claiming  the  whole  of  Texas  to 
be  theirs. 

They  had  marched  across  the  river  in  military  array — they 
had  entered  upon  American  soil  with  hostile  design.  Was  this 
not  war?  And  now  were  Senators  prepared  to  temporize  and 
to  predicate  the  action  of  this  Government  upon  that  of  the 
Mexican  Government,  as  if  the  latter  was  a  systematic,  regular, 
and  orderly  government  ?  He,  for  one,  was  not  prepared  to  do 
so.  How  many  revolutions  had  that  government  undergone 
within  the  last  three  years?  Not  less  than  three,  with  another 
now  in  embryo.  Perhaps  the  next  arrival  might  bring  us  news 
of  another  change,  and  that  the  American  army  on  the  Rio  del 
Norte  had  been  destroyed  while  awaiting  the  action  of  the 
Mexican  Government,  in  the  supposition  that  it  was  a  regularly 
constituted  government,  instead  of  being  a  government  of  brig- 
ands and  despots,  ruling  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and  keeping  faith 
with  no  other  nation,  and  heaping  indignities  upon  the  Amen- 


THE    MEXICAN   WAR 


347 


can  flag.  A  state  of  war  now  existed  as  perfect  as  it  could  be 
after  a  formal  declaration  or  recognition  of  a  state  of  war  by 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  Their  action  had  been  con- 
tinually indicative  of  a  state  of  war,  and  the  question  now  was, 
whether  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  respond 
to  that  action  and  visit  the  aggressors  with  punishment. 


A  WAR 
PRESIDENT 


PROGRESSIVE    DEMOCRACY 


k$w* 


CARICATURE  OF  LEWIS  CASS 

[1848  ] 

From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 

Senator  Cass. — It  is  true,  sir,  that  there  may  be  accidental 
or  unauthorized  recontres  which  do  not  therefore  constitute 
war.  But  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  an  aggression  suffi- 
ciently indicate  its  true  character  and  consequences.  A  Mexi- 
can army  invades  our  territory.  How  far  may  the  invaders 
march  before  we  are  satisfied  that  we  are  at  war  with  Mexico? 
Why,  sir,  such  a  state  of  things  must  be  judged  by  moral  evi- 
dence, by  the  circumstances  attending  it.  It  might  be  enough 
to  say  that  the  invasion  itself  throws  the  responsibility  upon  the 
Mexican  Government,  and  is  a  sufficient  justification  for  us  in 
holding  that  government  accountable.  The  negative  proof  is 
not  upon  us.    The  moral  presumption  is  sufficient  for  our  action. 


348  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

A  hostile  army  is  in  our  country;  our  frontier  has  been 
penetrated ;  a  foreign  banner  floats  over  the  soil  of  the  Repub- 
lic; our  citizens  have  been  killed  while  defending  their  coun- 
try ;  a  great  blow  has  been  aimed  at  us ;  and,  while  we  are  talk- 
ing and  asking  for  evidence,  it  may  have  been  struck  and  our 
army  been  annihilated.  And  what  then?  The  triumphant 
Mexicans  will  march  onward  till  they  reach  the  frontiers  of 
Louisiana,  or  till  we  receive  such  a  formal  certificate  of  the 
intentions  of  the  Mexican  Government  as  will  unite  us  in  a 
determination  to  recognize  the  existence  of  the  war,  and  to 
take  the  necessary  measures  to  prosecute  it  with  vigor. 

I  have  no  doubt  the  boundary  of  Texas  goes  to  the  Rio  del 
Norte.  But  I  do  not  place  the  justification  of  our  Government 
upon  any  question  of  title.  Granting  that  the  Mexicans  have  a 
claim  to  that  country  as  well  as  we,  still  the  nature  of  the  ag- 
gression is  not  changed.  We  were  in  the  possession  of  the 
country — a  possession  obtained  without  conflict.  And  we  could 
not  be  divested  of  this  possession  but  by  our  own  consent  or  by 
an  act  of  war.  The  ultimate  claim  to  the  country  was  a  ques- 
tion for  diplomatic  adjustment.  Till  that  took  place  the  pos- 
sessive right  was  in  us;  and  any  attempt  to  dislodge  us  was  a 
clear  act  of  war. 

We  have  but  one  safe  course  before  us.  Let  us  put  forth 
our  whole  strength.  Let  us  organize  a  force  that  will  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  the  result.  Let  us  enter  the  Mexican  territory  and 
conquer  a  peace  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  Let  us  move  on 
till  we  meet  reasonable  proposals  from  the  Mexican  Govern- 
ment; and  if  these  are  not  met  this  side  of  the  capital,  let  us 
take  possession  of  the  city  of  Montezuma  and  dictate  our  own 
conditions. 

Senator  Berrien. — The  proposition  of  the  Senator  is  that 
war  exists.  How  does  he  prove  it  ?  Why,  by  the  presence  of  a 
Mexican  army  around  the  United  States  army.  Does  he  not 
thus  decide  the  question  of  boundary?  No.  I  beg  to  ask  how 
that  possession  was  acquired,  and  by  whom?  It  was  by  the 
march  of  the  United  States  army  into  the  territory.  If  conced- 
ing that  it  was  a  disputed  territory,  the  right  of  Mexico  was 
equal  with  that  of  the  United  States  to  enter  the  territory.  If 
our  possession  was  derived  from  marching  our  army  there, 
cannot  Mexico  exercise  the  same  right  ?  Does  priority  in  an  act 
of  hostility  vest  a  national  right?  The  argument  of  the  Sen- 
ator is  that  the  march  of  the  Mexican  army  was  an  act  of  hos- 
tility. If  so,  I  have  demonstrated  that  the  march  of  the  United 
States  army  was  an  equal  act  of  hostility.    War  does  not,  then, 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  349 

exist  by  any  act  of  the  constituted  authorities,  in  whose  hands 
alone  is  the  power  to  create  war. 

Senator  Westcott. — Without  a  formal  declaration  of  war 
and  without  the  express  authority  of  Congress,  the  President 
cannot  issue  commissions  to  privateers — issue  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal — cannot  authorize  the  blockade  of  the  Mexican 
ports — cannot  authorize  the  capture  of  Mexican  vessels  on  the 
high  seas  as  prizes  of  war.  Without  such  declaration,  Mexicans 
taken  in  arms,  after  defeat  in  attacking  our  citizens  or  soldiers, 
cannot  be  held  by  the  Executive  authority  as  prisoners  of  war 
— treason  in  aiding  her  troops  may  even  go  unpunished;  and, 
above  all,  without  it  the  observance  of  the  duties  of  other  nations 
toward  us,  the  duty  of  neutrality,  so  likely  to  be  violated,  could 
not  be  properly  enforced.  Without  such  declaration,  Mexico 
may  be  supplied  with  arms,  ammunition,  and  munitions  of  war 
by  other  nations;  and,  if  captured,  they  would  not  be  liable  to 
forfeiture  as  "contraband  of  war."  The  declaration  of  war 
will  in  every  way  strengthen  the  Executive  arm  in  this  contest 
— at  home,  abroad,  on  the  field  of  contest,  and  in  these  halls. 
It  will  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  supplies  of  men  and  money 
we  propose  to  give  threefold.  It  will  convince  the  world  we  are 
in  earnest  in  this  matter. 

Senator  Crittenden. — He  saw  no  reason  for  the  advance 
of  the  troops  to  the  Rio  Grande — for  the  hazarding  of  those 
consequences  which  every  sensible  man  must  have  foreseen.  It 
was  not  for  a  moment  to  be  imagined  that  the  angry  armies  of 
two  angry  and  quarreling  nations  should,  day  after  day,  face 
each  other  with  cannons  pointed  at  each  other,  and  only  a 
fordable  river  between  them,  and  conflict  not  result.  It  was 
conceded  that  this  was  disputed  territory.  What  right  had  the 
United  States  to  take  possession  of  it?  Had  not  the  other  dis- 
puting claimant  an  equal  right?  But  he  would  not  prosecute 
that  view  of  the  subject  at  present.  He  was  willing  to  consider 
the  exigency  as  urgent  as  they  pleased,  and  to  make  adequate 
preparation.  As  it  was  the  wish  of  some  Senators  to  rest  with 
that  in  the  meantime,  he  should  be  entirely  content  with  that 
course,  but  he  did  not  know  that  he  would  be  willing  to  limit 
the  Government  to  repelling  invasion.  Perhaps  he  would  be 
satisfied  with  an  expression  of  what  he  meant  by  repelling 
invasion.  He  meant  by  that,  pursuing,  beating  down,  till  the 
borders  were  freed  from  danger  of  a  repetition  of  the  invasion. 

A  Senator. — * '  That  would  be  war. ' ' 

Mr.  Crittenden. — No;  there  was  a  shade  of  difference — a 
very  perceptible  one.    He  would  be  willing  to  give  the  means 


350  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

to  the  President  for  the  purpose  of  repelling  invasion  and  other- 
wise prosecuting  hostilities  till  the  peace  of  the  country  be 
secured  from  the  danger  of  further  invasion.  He  would  move 
to  strike  out  the  preamble,  of  which  he  saw  no  necessity — there 
was  none  in  the  declaration  of  war  in  1812. 

Senator  Crittenden's  motion  was  negatived,  20  yeas, 
25  nays.  The  question  " Shall  the  bill  pass?"  was  then 
put  and  resulted  40  yeas  to  2  nays,  Senators  Berrien 
and  Calhoun  not  voting,  and  Senator  Crittenden  voting 
"aye,  except  the  preamble." 

On  December  10, 1845,  Stephen  A.  Douglas  (Illinois), 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  introduced  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  joint  resolutions  of  the 
House  and  Senate  to  admit  Texas  into  the  Union.  Re- 
monstrances were  presented  from  various  Northern 
State  legislatures  and  other  bodies  against  admission  of 
the  State  with  slavery.  After  some  debate  the  resolu- 
tions came  to  a  vote  on  December  16  and  were  adopted 
by  141  yeas  to  56  nays.  While  they  omitted  all  direct 
allusions  to  slavery,  permission  to  introduce  it  into  the 
State  was  implicit  in  the  statement  of  the  resolutions  that 
Texas  should  be  "admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects  what- 
ever." 

Julius  Rockwell  (Massachusetts)  was  the  chief 
speaker  in  opposition  to  the  resolutions. 

This  Texas  slavery  question  was  a  new  question  now  for  the 
first  time  presented  to  the  consciences  of  men.  As  one  called 
to  represent  in  part  the  people  of  his  own  ancient  Common- 
wealth he  must  enter  his  solemn  protest  against  the  extension  of 
slavery  as  an  evil  directed  against  the  truest  interests  of  his 
country;  as  militating  directly  against  its  prosperity  and  free- 
dom, and  darkening  that  national  character  which  she  ought 
to  hold  up  to  all  nations  and  ages  of  the  world ;  as  being  in  op- 
position to  the  Constitution  which  had  preserved  us  hitherto  in 
concord ;  as  against  the  principles  of  the  fathers  of  the  Repub- 
lic, who  lived  themselves  in  slaveholding  States,  who  would  have 
saved  us,  if  they  could,  from  so  great  an  evil,  and  who  openly 
confessed  that  they  trembled  for  their  country  when  they  re- 
membered that  God  is  just. 

The  joint  resolution  for  admitting  Texas  into  the 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  351 

Union  with  slavery  was  presented  in  the  Senate  on  De- 
cember 22,  1845,  and  was  thoroughly  debated,  John  M. 
Berrien  (Georgia)  speaking  in  the  affirmative,  and 
Daniel  Webster  (Massachusetts)  in  the  negative.  It 
passed  by  a  vote  of  31  to  14. 


Admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union 

Senate,  December  22,  1845 

Senator  Webster. — While  I  hold,  with  as  much  integrity, 
I  trust,  and  faithfulness  as  any  citizen  of  this  country  to  all  the 
original  arrangements  and  compromises  in  which  the  Constitu- 
tion under  which  we  now  live  was  adopted,  I  never  could  and 
never  can  persuade  myself  to  be  in  favor  of  the  admission  of 
other  States  into  the  Union  as  slave  States,  with  the  inequali- 
ties which  were  allowed  and  accorded  to  the  slaveholding  States 
then  in  existence  by  the  Constitution.  I  do  not  think  that  the 
free  States  ever  expected,  or  could  expect,  that  they  would  be 
called  on  to  admit  further  slave  States  having  the  advantages, 
the  unequal  advantages,  arising  to  them  from  the  mode  of  ap- 
portioning representation  under  the  existing  Constitution. 

On  looking  at  the  proposition  I  find  that  it  imposes  restraints 
upon  the  legislature  of  the  State  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it 
shall  proceed  (in  case  there  is  a  desire  to  proceed  at  all)  in 
order  to  abolish  slavery.  I  have  perused  that  part  of  the 
constitution  of  Texas,  and,  if  I  understand  it,  the  legislature 
is  restrained  from  abolishing  slavery  at  any  time,  except  on 
two  conditions:  one,  the  consent  of  every  master;  and,  the 
other,  the  payment  of  compensation.  Now,  I  think  that  a  con- 
stitution thus  formed  does  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  legislature 
effectually  against  any  movement  under  any  state  of  circum- 
stances, with  a  view  to  abolish  slavery;  because  if  anything  is 
to  be  done  it  must  be  done  within  the  State  by  general  law,  and 
such  a  thing  as  the  consent  of  every  master  cannot  be  obtained. 

Mr.  President,  I  was  not  in  the  councils  of  the  United  States 
at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  and  of  Course  I  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  take  part  in  the  debates  upon  this  question ;  nor  have  I 
before  been  called  upon  to  discharge  a  public  trust  in  regard  to 
it.  I  certainly  did,  as  a  private  citizen,  entertain  a  strong  feel- 
ing that  if  Texas  were  to  be  brought  into  the  Union  at  all  she 
was  to  be  brought  in  by  diplomatic  arrangement,  sanctioned  by 
treaty;  but  it  has  been  decided  otherwise  by  both  Houses  of 


352  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Congress:  and,  whatever  my  own  opinions  may  be,  I  know 
that  many  who  coincided  with  me  feel  themselves,  neverthe- 
less, bound  by  the  decision  of  all  branches  of  the  Government. 

I  discharge  my  own  duty  and  fulfil  the  expectations  of  those 
who  placed  me  here  by  giving  this  expression  of  their  most 
decided,  unequivocal,  and  entirely  unanimous  dissent  and  pro- 
test ;  and  stating,  as  I  have  now  stated,  the  reasons  which  have 
impelled  me  to  withhold  my  vote. 

I  agree  with  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  legislature  of 
Massachusetts;  I  agree  with  the  great  mass  of  her  people;  I 
reaffirm  what  I  have  said  and  written  in  the  last  eight  years, 
at  various  times,  against  this  annexation.  I  here  record  my 
own  dissent  and  opposition;  and  I  here  express  and  place  on 
record,  also,  the  dissent  and  protest  of  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts. 

Senator  Berrien. — The  pledge  of  this  Government  has  been 
given,  and  it  must  be  redeemed.  The  only  question,  therefore, 
is  whether  the  people  of  Texas  have  complied  with  the  con- 
ditions specified  in  the  joint  resolution?  Now,  sir,  I  have  given 
a  somewhat  attentive  consideration  to  the  constitution  which 
they  have  adopted,  and  am  of  opinion  that  these  conditions 
have  been  complied  with.  I  see  nothing  in  the  provisions  of 
that  constitution  on  the  subject  of  slavery  which  ought  to  pro- 
hibit the  consummation  of  the  measure  as  promised  in  the  reso- 
lutions of  the  last  Congress.  Much  to  which  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  refers,  the  inhibition  to  the  legislature,  except 
on  certain  conditions,  to  pass  laws  of  emancipation,  it  seems  to 
me  is  somewhat  beyond  the  province  of  Congress  to  entertain. 
It  is  perfectly  open,  as  I  have  before  said,  to  any  Senator  to 
question  the  propriety  of  the  admission  of  Texas  on  the  ground 
of  its  tendency  to  disturb  the  political  balances  between  the 
States  contemplated  by  the  Constitution;  but  the  question  of 
emancipation,  when,  how,  and  under  what  circumstances  to  be 
allowed,  it  would  appear  to  me  should  be  left  with  her  own 
Legislature,  as  a  subject  for  domestic  regulation,  belonging 
exclusively  to  the  State,  and  with  which  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  has  no  authority,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
interfere. 

During  the  progress  of  the  war  a  spirited  debate 
took  place  in  the  House  on  the  occasion  of  making 
appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army.  The 
speakers  who  defended  the  war  as  just  were  Stephen  A. 
Douglas  (Illinois)  and  J.  H.  Lumpkin  (Georgia),  and 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  353 

those  who  denounced  it  as  unjust,  though  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Joshua  E.  Giddings  (Ohio)  they  were  willing 
to  support  the  army  now  that  hostilities  had  begun,  were 
Giddings,  Columbus  Delano  (Ohio),  John  W.  Houston 
(Delaware),  John  Quincy  Adams  (Massachusetts)  and 
Robert  Toombs  (Georgia). 


"My  Country,  Right  or  Wrong" 

Debate  on  the  Mexican  War,  House  op  Representatives, 
May  13-19,  1846 

Mr.  Giddings. — The  President  in  his  message,  as  a  pretext 
for  sending  our  army  to  invade  and  conquer  the  country  upon 
the  Rio  Grande,  says: 

"  Texas,  by  its  act  of  December  19,  1836,  had  declared  the 
Rio  del  Norte  to  be  the  boundary  of  that  republic.' ■ 

This  mere  declaration  on  paper  by  the  legislature  of  Texas 
could  not  change  or  alter  the  facts.  They  were  entered  upon 
the  page  of  history,  as  well  as  upon  the  records  of  eternal  truth ; 
and  no  flagrant  falsehood  by  that  body,  indorsed  by  a  dignitary 
of  this  Government,  can  change  or  alter  them.  The  truth  is 
that  Texas  had  agreed  upon  the  Nueces  as  her  boundary. 

Were  Mexico  to  declare,  by  a  legislative  act,  that  her  eastern 
boundary  is  the  "Hudson  River,"  and,  on  paper,  attach  the 
whole  of  our  States  south  and  west  of  that  stream  to  her  con- 
gressional districts,  and  then,  on  paper,  divide  our  seaboard 
into  collection  districts,  without  being  able  to  enforce  her  laws 
in  any  way  whatever,  her  president  may,  at  the  next  meeting  of 
her  congress,  adopt  this  portion  of  President  Polk's  message, 
and  urge,  with  equal  propriety,  that  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio 
are  Mexican  territory.  But  if  Mexico  possessed  the  power  and 
disposition  to  enforce  such  views,  we  should  regard  the  carrying 
them  out  to  be  an  outrage  unparalleled  among  civilized  and 
Christian  nations;  and  were  a  Mexican  army  to  invade  our 
country,  in  order  to  compel  us  to  unite  with  their  government, 
we  should  meet  them  sword  in  hand  and  would  yield  our  coun- 
try only  with  our  lives. 

I  apprehend  that  much  blood  and  much  treasure  will  be 
expended  before  the  people  of  New  Mexico  will  be  compelled  to 
unite  with  slave-holding  Texas.  Those  Mexicans  love  freedom. 
They  have  abolished  slavery,  for  which  they  entertain  an  uncon- 


354  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

querable  detestation.  If  I  had  time,  I  should  like  to  inquire  of 
gentlemen  from  New  England  and  from  our  free  States  what 
benefit  our  nation  or  the  world  are  to  receive  from  a  conquest 
of  that  country  and  the  extension  of  slavery  over  it  ? 

But  the  President  says  this  Mexican  country  "is  now  in- 
cluded in  one  of  our  congressional  districts.' '  These  thirty 
thousand  people  who,  so  soon  as  the  bill  which  passed  this 
House  yesterday  shall  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Senate,  and 
shall  be  approved  by  the  President,  will  be  in  a  state  of  war 
with  this  nation,  are  to  be  represented  on  this  floor  because 
Texas  has  on  paper  attached  them  to  one  of  her  congressional 
districts.  If  this  act  of  the  Texan  legislature  has  any  binding 
force  whatever,  it  will  render  every  Mexican  who  opposes  our 
army  a  traitor  against  this  Government,  and  will  subject  him  to 
the  punishment  of  death. 

Yes,  the  men  who  burned  their  dwellings  at  Point  Isabel 
and  with  their  wives  and  little  ones  fled  before  our  invading 
army  are  to  be  represented  in  this  body.  Should  their  repre- 
sentative, according  to  the  democratic  doctrine,  carry  out  the 
views  of  his  constituents,  the  President  himself  may,  in  an  un- 
guarded moment,  find  a  " lasso' '  about  his  own  neck,  and  the 
members  of  our  body  be  assassinated  agreeably  to  the  hearty 
wishes  of  the  people  of  that  district. 

I  regard  the  message  as  having  been  put  forth  to  divert  pub- 
lic attention  from  the  outrage  committed  by  the  President  upon 
our  own  Constitution,  and  the  exercise  of  usurped  powers,  of 
which  he  has  been  guilty  in  ordering  our  army  to  invade  a 
country  with  which  we  are  at  peace,  and  of  provoking  and  bring- 
ing on  this  war.  I  am  led  to  this  inevitable  conclusion  from 
the  fact  that  he  dare  not  rest  his  justification  upon  truth.  He 
reminds  us  of  the  grievous  wrongs  perpetrated  (as  he  says)  by 
Mexico  upon  our  people  in  former  years,  and  alludes  to  the 
delay  of  that  government  in  the  payment  of  debts  due  our 
people,  and  mourns  over  the  loss  of  our  commerce  with  Mexico ; 
all  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  himself  in  sending  the  army  to 
the  Rio  Grande,  and  commencing  the  work  of  human  butchery ! 

If  the  country  be  ours,  why  does  he  seek  to  justify  the  taking 
possession  of  it  by  reference  to  the  fact  that  Mexico  is  indebted 
to  some  of  our  people?  If  it  be  not  ours,  and  he  has  taken 
possession  of  it  in  order  to  compel  Mexico  to  pay  those  debts, 
why  not  say  so?  The  fact  that  Mexico  has  not  paid  the  debts 
due  to  our  citizens  can  have  no  legitimate  connection  with  tak- 
ing possession  of  our  own  soil.  But  the  writer  of  the  message 
was  obviously  conscious  that  this  invasion  of  the  Mexican  ter- 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  355 

ritory  could  not  be  justified;  and  he  endeavored  to  extenuate 
the  act  by  assuring  us  that  "the  movement  of  the  troops  to  the 
Del  Norte  was  made  under  positive  instructions  to  abstain  from 
all  aggressive  acts  toward  Mexico  or  Mexican  citizens  unless 
she  should  declare  war." 

What  aggressive  acts  toward  a  foreign  power  could  our 
army  commit  while  on  our  own  territory  ?  While  the  army  was 
within  the  United  States  they  could  not  commit  violence  upon 
Mexico.  The  order  was  also  to  abstain  from  all  aggressive  acts 
toward  "Mexican  citizens."  It  seems  that  the  President  ex- 
pected General  Taylor  to  find  Mexican  citizens  located  within 
the  United  States.  And  this  sentence  evidently  alludes  to  the 
order  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  which  General  Taylor  was 
directed  to  take  possession  of  the  whole  country  "except  that 
which  was  in  the  actual  occupation  of  Mexican  troops  or  Mexi- 
can settlements."  Here  is  a  distinct  admission  that  this  coun- 
try, claimed  by  the  President  as  a  portion  of  the  United  States, 
was  in  the  actual  possession  of  Mexican  troops  and  Mexican 
settlements.  The  idea  that  our  army  could  peaceably  surround 
those  military  posts  occupied  by  Mexican  troops  could  be  en- 
tertained by  no  reflecting  mind.  The  President  must  have 
known,  and  we  all  know,  that  those  military  posts  were  estab- 
lished for  the  sole  purpose  of  protecting  the  country,  and  the 
sending  of  our  army  there  must  have  been  done  with  the  moral 
certainty  that  war  would  ensue.  The  truth  is  most  obvious  to 
the  casual  reader.  The  President  obviously  intended  to  involve 
us  in  war  with  Mexico.  No  sophistry  can  disguise  that  fact. 
That  truth  will  stand  on  the  page  of  history  in  all  coming 
time,  to  the  disgrace  of  this  nation  and  of  the  age  in  which 
we  live. 

Sir,  I  regard  this  war  as  but  one  scene  in  the  drama  now 
being  enacted  by  this  Administration.  Our  Government  is 
undergoing  a  revolution  no  less  marked  than  was  that  of  France 
in  1792.  As  yet,  it  has  not  been  characterized  by  that  amount 
of  bloodshed  and  cruelty  which  distinguished  the  change  of 
government  in  France.  When  the  Executive  and  Congress 
openly  and  avowedly  took  upon  themselves  the  responsibility 
s  of  extending  and  perpetuating  slavery  by  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  and  by  the  total  overthrow  and  subversion  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  that,  too,  by  the  aid  of  Northern  votes,  my  con- 
fidence in  the  stability  of  our  institutions  was  shaken,  destroyed. 
I  had  hoped  that  the  free  States  might  be  aroused  in  time  to 
save  our  Union  from  final  overthrow;  but  that  hope  has  been 
torn  from  me.     The  great  charter  of  our  political  liberties  has 


356  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

been  tamely  surrendered  by  our  free  States  to  purchase  per- 
petual slavery  for  the  South.  Our  Union  continues,  but  our 
Constitution  is  gone.  The  rights  of  the  several  States  and  of 
the  people  now  depend  upon  the  arbitrary  will  of  an  irrespon- 
sible majority,  who  are  themselves  controlled  by  a  weak  but 
ambitious  Executive. 

Sir,  no  man  regards  this  war  as  just.  We  know,  the  coun- 
try knows,  and  the  civilized  world  are  conscious,  that  it  has 
resulted  from  a  desire  to  extend  and  sustain  an  institution  on 
which  the  curse  of  the  Almighty  most  visibly  rests.  Mexico 
has  long  since  abolished  slavery.  She  has  purified  herself  from 
its  crimes  and  its  guilt.  That  institution  is  now  circumscribed 
on  the  southwest  by  Mexico,  where  the  slaves  of  Texas  find  an 
asylum.  A  gentleman  from  Matamoras  lately  assured  me  that 
there  were  in  and  about  that  city  at  least  five  hundred  fugi- 
tives from  Texan  bondage.  Experience  has  shown  that  they 
cannot  be  held  in  servitude  in  the  vicinity  of  a  free  govern- 
ment. It  has  therefore  become  necessary  to  extend  our  domin- 
ions into  Mexico  in  order  to  render  slavery  secure  in  Texas. 
Without  this,  the  great  objects  of  annexation  will  not  be  at- 
tained. We  sought  to  extend  and  perpetuate  slavery  in  a 
peaceful  manner  by  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Now  we  are 
about  to  effect  that  object  by  war  and  conquest.  Can  we  in- 
voke the  blessing  of  Deity  to  rest  on  such  motives?  Has  the 
Almighty  any  attribute  that  will  permit  Him  to  take  sides 
with  us  in  this  contest? 

I  know  it  is  said  that  a  large  army  and  heavy  appropriations 
will  make  a  short  war.  God  grant  that  the  prediction  may 
prove  true.  I  apprehend  that  Mexico  has  maturely  considered 
the  subject,  and  enters  upon  the  war  with  a  solemn  conviction 
that  her  existence  as  a  nation  depends  upon  her  resistance  to 
our  aggressions.  The  devotion  of  her  people  at  Point  Isabel 
conclusively  shows  it.  Why,  sir,  look  at  General  Taylor's  re- 
port, and  you  will  see  a  devotion  manifested  by  the  officers  and 
peasantry  of  Mexico  that  speaks  in  thunder  tones  to  those  who 
regard  the  conquest  of  that  people  as  a  trifling  matter.  See 
the  females  and  children,  at  the  approach  of  our  troops,  leave 
their  homes,  consecrated  by  all  the  ties  of  domestic  life,  and, 
while  they  are  fleeing  to  the  Mexican  army  for  protection,  see 
their  husbands  and  fathers  apply  the  torch  to  their  own  dwell- 
ings, and  then  fly  to  arms  in  defence  of  their  institutions.  I 
confess  I  was  struck  with  deep  solemnity  when  that  communica- 
tion was  read  at  your  table ;  and,  in  imitation  of  William  Pitt, 
I  was  ready  to  swear  that,  if  I  were  a  Mexican,  as  I  am  an 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  357 

American,  I  would  never  sheathe  my  sword  while  an  enemy- 
remained  upon  my  native  soil. 

Yesterday  I  was  asked  to  declare  to  the  world  that  "Mexico 
had  made  war  upon  us."  That  assertion  I  knew  would  be 
untrue,  as  I  have  already  shown.  I  felt  most  deeply  the  impo- 
tence of  this  body,  in  thus  attempting  to  change  or  alter  great 
and  important  facts  already  entered  upon  the  records  of  eter- 
nal truth,  where  they  will  remain  while  a  God  of  truth  shall 
exist.  Sir,  when  we  were  about  to  assume  upon  ourselves  the 
awful  responsibility  of  involving  our  country  in  a  serious  and 
bloody  war,  with  all  its  consequences;  when  about  to  appeal  to 
a  God  of  justice  and  of  truth  for  his  aid  in  maintaining  our 
national  rights,  I  dared  not  do  so  with  an  impious  falsehood 
upon  my  lips. 

But  I  hear  it  said  that  '  *  we  must  go  for  our  country,  right 
or  wrong."  If  this  maxim  be  understood  to  require  us  to  go 
with  our  country,  or  with  the  majority  of  our  country,  to  com- 
mit a  wrong  upon  other  nations  or  people,  either  in  time  of 
peace  or  in  time  of  war,  I  deny  its  morality ;  but  if  it  be  under- 
stood as  imposing  upon  us,  at  all  times  and  under  all  circum- 
stances, the  obligation  of  using  all  our  influence  and  efforts  to 
set  our  country  in  the  right  when  we  find  her  wrong,  or  to 
keep  her  right  when  we  find  her  in  the  path  of  duty,  then, 
sir,  I  yield  my  assent  to  its  correctness.  "We  are  not  to  aban- 
don our  country  because  our  Government  is  badly  administered ; 
but,  in  such  case,  we  should  use  our  efforts  to  correct  the  evil 
and  place  the  Government  in  just  and  able  hands. 

Again  it  is  said,  "we  must  stand  by  our  country."  The 
man  who  would  do  otherwise  would  be  unworthy  of  any  coun- 
try. He  only  is  a  true  friend  of  his  country  who  maintains 
her  virtue  and  her  justice;  and  he  is  not  a  true  friend  to  his 
country  who  will  knowingly  support  her  in  doing  wrong.  To- 
morrow this  nation  will  probably  be  in  a  state  of  war  with 
Mexico.  It  will  be  an  aggressive,  unholy,  and  unjust  war.  It 
will  then  be  my  duty  to  use  my  efforts  to  restore  peace  at  the 
earliest  practicable  moment  that  it  can  be  done  on  just  and 
honorable  principles.  But  while  the  war  continues  efforts  will 
probably  be  made  to  conquer  Mexico,  and  we  shall  be  called 
on  to  appropriate  money  and  raise  troops  to  go  there  and 
slay  her  people  and  rob  her  of  territory.  But  the  crime  of 
murdering  her  inhabitants  and  of  taking  possession  of  her  ter- 
ritory will  be  as  great  to-morrow,  after  war  shall  have  been 
declared,  as  it  would  have  been  yesterday. 

Justice  is  as  unchangeable  as  its  Author.     The  line  of  moral 


358  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

rectitude  will  never  bend  to  our  selfish  passions.  In  the  mur- 
der of  Mexicans  upon  their  own  soil,  or  in  robbing  them  of  their 
country,  I  can  take  no  part,  either  now  or  hereafter.  The  guilt 
of  these  crimes  must  rest  on  others;  I  will  not  participate  in 
them;  but  if  Mexicans  or  any  other  people  should  dare  invade 
our  country,  I  would  meet  them  with  the  sword  in  one  hand  and 
a  torch  in  the  other ;  and,  if  compelled  to  retreat,  like  the  Mexi- 
cans at  Point  Isabel,  I  would  lay  our  dwellings  in  ashes,  rather 
than  see  them  occupied  by  a  conquering  army. 

We  may  always  justify  ourselves  for  defending  our  coun- 
try, but  never  for  waging  a  war  upon  an  unoffending  people 
for  the  purpose  of  conquest.  There  is  an  immutable,  an  eter- 
nal principle  of  justice  pervading  the  moral  universe.  No  na- 
tion, or  people,  or  individual  ever  did  or  ever  will  violate  that 
law  with  impunity. 

Suppose  we  send  an  army  into  Mexico  and  kill  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  her  people,  burn  her  cities,  and  lay  waste 
her  country;  do  you  think  we  shall  escape  the  dread  penalty 
of  retributive  justice?  I  tell  you,  we  shall  not.  As  sure  as 
our  destiny  is  swayed  by  a  righteous  God,  our  troops  will  fall 
by  the  sword  and  by  pestilence;  our  widows  will  mourn;  and 
our  orphans,  rendered  such  by  this  unholy  war,  will  be  thrown 
upon  our  public  charity.1 

But  it  is  said  that  war  is  always  popular.  I  deny  this  asser- 
tion. I  believe  that  nine-tenths  of  our  people  regarded  the 
Florida  war  with  contempt.2  Their  disgust  arose  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  unjust  and  cruel,  and  arose  from  an  effort  to  sus- 
tain slavery.  This  war  is  equally  unjust,  and  arises  from  the 
same  cause,  and  must  be  viewed  in  the  same  light  by  the  people. 
It  is  impossible,  in  the  nature  of  things,  for  it  to  be  otherwise. 
Our  people  feel  no  hostility  to  those  of  Mexico.  The  Mexicans 
have  remained  at  home,  "under  their  own  vines  and  fig-trees''; 
they  have  not  molested  us  or  encroached  upon  our  rights.  It  is 
true  that  their  population  is  less  intelligent  than  that  of  our 
free  States;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  they  are  more  rapidly 
improving  their  condition  than  are  those  of  our  slave  States. 
They  are  surely  in  advance  of  them  in  the  diffusion  of  univer- 
sal liberty  among  their  people.  The  means  of  intelligence  and 
enjoyment  are  open  to  all. 

Indeed,  taking  the  whole  population  of  our  slave  States  and 
of  Mexico  into  consideration,  I  think  we  shall  find  the  Mexicans 

*It  is  estimated  that  the  number  of  victims  who  fell  in  this  war,  by 
pestilence  and  the  sword,  were  eighty  thousand.  Of  these,  thirty  thousand 
were  Americans,  and  fifty  thousand  Mexicans. 

2  The  Seminole  War.    See  Volume  VIII,  Chapter  VI. 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  359 

the  best  informed,  most  intelligent,  and  most  virtuous.  Our 
people  of  the  North  have  sympathized  with  them  in  their  efforts 
to  render  their  free  government  permanent  and  respectable. 
Can  the  lovers  of  liberty  now  desire  to  see  a  sister  republic 
wantonly  subverted  while  just  coming  into  existence  and 
struggling  for  the  permanent  establishment  of  civil  freedom? 
It  cannot  be.  You  may  declare  war;  display  your  banners, 
your  glittering  arms,  your  blazing  uniforms;  you  may  raise 
the  battle-cry  and  sound  your  trumpets;  but  you  cannot  induce 
the  intelligent  men  of  the  North  to  march  to  Mexico  for  the 
purpose  of  bathing  their  hands  in  Mexican  blood  for  the  ex- 
tension of  slavery.  You  may  for  the  moment  excite  the  young, 
the  giddy  and  thoughtless;  but  their  " sober  second  thoughts'* 
will  lead  them  to  inquire  for  the  cause  of  the  war  in  which  they 
are  asked  to  engage.  The  true  answer  to  that  inquiry  must 
overwhelm  its  authors  with  disgrace. 

.  There  is,  however,  one  cheering  circumstance  in  the  distant 
future.  All  history  informs  us  that  for  ages  no  nation  or 
people,  once  having  adopted  the  system  of  universal  freedom, 
was  ever  afterward  brought  to  the  maintenance  of  slavery. 
There  are  now  probably  eight  or  nine  millions  of  people  in 
Mexico  who  hate  slavery  as  sincerely  as  do  those  of  our  free 
States.  You  may  murder  or  drive  from  their  country  that 
whole  population,  but  you  can  never  force  slavery  upon  them. 
This  war  is  waged  against  an  unoffending  people,  without  just 
or  adequate  cause,  for  the  purposes  of  conquest ;  with  the  design 
to  extend  slavery;  in  violation  of  the  Constitution,  against  the 
dictates  of  justice,  of  humanity,  the  sentiments  of  the  age  in 
which  we  live,  and  the  precepts  of  the  religion  we  profess.  I 
will  lend  it  no  aid,  no  support  whatever.  I  will  not  bathe  my 
hands  in  the  blood  of  the  people  of  Mexico,  nor  will  I  partici- 
pate in  the  guilt  of  those  murders  which  have  been  and  which 
will  hereafter  be  committed  by  our  army  there.  For  these  rea- 
sons I  shall  vote  against  the  bill  under  consideration  and  all 
others  calculated  to  support  this  war. 

Mr.  Delano  said :  We  were  in  the  midst  of  a  war  which  we 
had  engaged  in  without  authority  of  law  and  without  being 
in  the  right,  yet,  now  that  war  had  begun,  on  the  principle  of 
"my  country,  may  she  be  always  right,  but,  right  or  wrong, 
my  country,"  he  was  ready  to  adopt  purely  defensive  meas- 
ures. Where  this  war  would  end  he  could  not  predict.  But 
we  had  not  yet  settled  the  Oregon  question.  He  never  had  any 
confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  the  President's  declarations  of  a 
purpose  to  maintain  our  rights  in  Oregon.     He  believed  that 


360  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

he  would  give  away  all  Oregon  to  prosecute  this  war  for  a 
territory  not  belonging  to  us. 

We  had  declared  war  without  notice.  It  came  upon  the 
country  like  a  clap  of  thunder  in  a  clear  sky.  The  pirates  were 
ready  to  be  let  loose  upon  our  unprotected  commerce.  We  had 
everything  to  lose — nothing  to  gain.  Send  your  armies,  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  illegal,  unrighteous,  and  damnable  war,  to 
the  mountains  of  Mexico,  and  disease  and  the  foe  will  sweep 
them  off  in  thousands.  The  passes  and  mountains  of  Mexico 
would  become  a  charnel-house  for  our  people,  and  their  bones 
would  be  scattered  all  over  its  vast  territory  before  this  peace 
would  be  conquered. 

Mr.  Douglas  said:  What  reliance  shall  we  place  on  the 
sincerity  of  gentlemen's  professions  that  they  are  for  the  coun- 
try, right  or  wrong,  when  they  exert  all  their  power  and  influ- 
ence to  put  their  country  in  the  wrong  in  the  eyes  of  Christen- 
dom, and  invoke  the  wrath  of  Heaven  upon  us  for  our  manifold 
crimes  and  aggressions?  With  professions  of  patriotism  on 
their  lips,  do  they  not  show  that  their  hearts  are  against  their 
own  country?  They  appeal  to  the  consciences  and  religious 
feelings  of  our  countrymen  to  unite  in  execration  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, army,  citizen  soldiers,  and  country,  for  prosecuting 
what  they  denounce  as  an  unholy,  unrighteous,  and  damnable 
cause.  They  predict  that  the  judgment  of  God  will  rest  upon 
us;  that  sickness,  and  carnage,  and  death  will  be  our  portion; 
that  defeat  and  disgrace  will  attend  our  arms.  Is  there  not 
treason  in  the  heart  that  can  feel  and  poison  in  the  breath  that 
can  utter  such  sentiments  against  their  own  country,  when 
forced  to  take  up  arms  in  self-defence,  to  repel  invasion  by  a 
brutal  and  perfidious  enemy?  They  for  their  country,  right  or 
wrong,  who  tell  our  people,  if  they  rally  under  their  country's 
standard,  their  bones  will  bleach  on  the  plains  of  Mexico,  and 
the  enemy  will  look  down  from  the  mountain  top  to  behold 
the  destruction  of  our  armies  by  disease  and  malarias,  and  all 
those  mysterious  elements  of  death  which  Divine  Providence  em- 
ploys to  punish  a  wicked  people  for  prosecuting  an  unholy  and 
unjust  war!  Sir,  I  tell  these  gentlemen  that  it  requires  more 
charity  than  falls  to  the  lot  of  frail  man  to  believe  that  these 
sentiments  are  consistent  with  the  sincerity  of  their  professions 
— with  patriotism,  honor,  and  duty  to  their  country.  Patriot- 
ism emanates  from  the  heart,  fills  the  soul,  infuses  itself  into 
the  whole  man,  and  speaks  and  acts  the  same  language.  A 
friend  of  his  country  in  war  will  feel,  speak,  and  act  for  his 
country;  will  revere  his  country's  cause  and  hate  his  country's 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  361 

enemies.  America  wants  no  friends,  acknowledges  the  fidelity 
of  no  citizen  who,  after  war  is  declared,  condemns  the  justice 
of  her  cause  or  sympathizes  with  the  enemy.  All  such  are 
traitors  in  their  hearts;  and  would  to  God  that  they  would 
commit  such  overt  act  for  which  they  could  be  dealt  with  ac- 
cording to  their  deserts. 

I  will  not  proceed  16  examine  the  arguments  by  which  the 
gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Delano],  and  those  with  whom  he  acts 
pretend  to  justify  their  foreign  sympathies.  They  assume  that 
the  Rio  del  Norte  was  not  the  boundary  line  between  Texas 
and  Mexico;  that  the  Republic  of  Texas  never  extended  beyond 
the  Nueces — and  consequently  our  Government  was  under  no 
obligation,  and  had  no  right,  to  protect  the  lives  and  property 
of  American  citizens  beyond  the  last-mentioned  river.  In  sup- 
port of  this  assumption,  the  gentleman  has  referred  to  the  dis- 
pute which  he  says  arose  between  the  provinces  of  Coahuila  and 
Texas,  and  the  decisions  of  Almonte  and  some  other  Mexican 
general  thereon  prior  to  the  Texan  revolution,  and  while  those 
provinces  constituted  a  state  of  the  Mexican  Confederacy.  I 
will  direct  the  gentleman's  attention  to  the  various  maps,  rec- 
ords, histories,  and  authorities — Spanish,  English,  and  French 
— by  which  it  is  shown  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  boundary 
line  between  the  French  province  of  Louisiana  and  the  Span- 
ish provinces  of  Mexico.  The  gentleman  can  also  satisfy  him- 
self on  that  point  if  he  will  take  the  pains  to  read  a  dispatch 
(I  might  with  propriety  say  a  book,  from  its  very  great  length) 
written  by  the  American  Secretary  of  State,  John  Q.  Adams, 
to  the  Spanish  minister  [Don  Onis]  in  1819.  He  will  there  find 
the  authorities  all  collected  and  reviewed  with  a  clearness  and 
ability  which  defy  refutation  and  demonstrate  the  validity  of 
the  American  title  under  the  treaty  of  1803  to  the  country  in 
dispute,  together  with  the  expression  of  his  opinion,  by  the 
venerable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Adams]  that  our 
title  to  the  Del  Norte  was  as  clear  as  to  the  island  of  New 
Orleans.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Adams  in  1819.  It  was 
the  opinion  of  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinckney  in  1805.  It  was 
the  opinion  of  Jefferson  and  Madison — of  all  our  Presidents, 
and  all  Administrations,  from  the  day  of  the  purchase  of  Loui- 
siana in  1803  to  the  fatal  treaty  of  relinquishment  to  Spain  in 
1819.  I  give  the  gentleman  the  opinion  of  these  men  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  opinion  of  Almonte  and  his  brother  Mexican  gen- 
eral, and  then  leave  the  question  of  boundary  prior  to  the 
Texan  revolution.  Will  he  tell  us  and  his  constituents  that 
those  distinguished  statesmen,  including  his  friend  from  Mas- 


362  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

sachusetts  [Mr.  Adams] ,  as  well  as  Mr.  Polk  and  the  American 
Congress,  were  engaged  in  an  unholy,  an  unrighteous,  and 
damnable  cause  in  claiming  title  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  f 

But,  sir,  I  have  already  said  that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  rely  upon  these  old  authorities  for  the  full  and  complete 
justification  of  our  Government  in  defending  possession  of  the 
country  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  del  Norte.  There  is  better 
and  higher  evidence  than  this.  The  Republic  of  Texas  held  the 
country  by  a  more  glorious  title  than  can  be  traced  through 
the  old  maps  and  musty  records  of  Spanish  and  French  courts. 
She  held  the  country  by  the  same  title  that  our  forefathers  of 
the  Revolution  acquired  our  territory  and  achieved  the  inde- 
pendence of  this  Republic.  She  held  it  by  virtue  of  her  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  setting  forth  the  inalienable  rights  of 
man,  by  men  who  had  hearts  to  feel  and  minds  to  comprehend 
the  blessings  of  freedom;  by  principles  successfully  maintained 
by  the  irresistible  power  of  her  arms,  and  consecrated  by  the 
precious  blood  of  her  glorious  heroes.  These  are  her  muniments 
of  title  to  the  empire  which  she  has  voluntarily  annexed  to  our 
Union,  and  which  we  have  plighted  our  faith  to  protect  and 
defend  against  invasion  or  dismemberment.  We  have  received 
the  Republic  of  Texas,  with  her  entire  territory,  into  this 
Union,  as  an  independent  and  sovereign  State,  and  have  no 
right  to  alienate  or  surrender  any  portion  of  it. 

Immediately  after  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto,  Santa  Anna 
made  a  proposition  to  the  commander  of  the  Texan  army  to 
make  a  treaty  of  peace,  by  which  Mexico  would  recognize  the 
independence  of  Texas,  with  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the  boundary. 
In  May,  1836,  such  a  treaty  was  made  between  the  government 
of  Texas  and  Santa  Anna,  in  which  the  independence  of  the 
republic  of  Texas  was  acknowledged,  and  the  Rio  del  Norte 
recognized  as  the  boundary.  In  pursuance  of  this  treaty,  the 
remnant  of  the  Mexican  army  were  ordered  by  Santa  Anna  to 
retire  beyond  the  confines  of  the  Republic  of  Texas,  and  take 
their  position  on  the  west  side  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  which  they 
did  in  conformity  with  the  treaty  of  peace. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Houston. — I  wish  to  ask  of  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois  was  that  treaty  ever  ratified  by  the  Government  of 
Mexico  ? 

Mr.  Douglas. — I  will  answer  the  gentleman's  question  with 
great  pleasure.  That  treaty  was  never  ratified  on  the  part  of 
Mexico  by  anybody  except  Santa  Anna,  for  the  very  good  rea- 
son that,  in  the  year  previous,  Santa  Anna  had  usurped  the 
Government  of  Mexico,  had  abolished  the  constitution  and  the 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  363 

regularly  established  government,  and  taken  all  the  powers  of 
government  into  his  own  hands.  This  treaty  was  entered  into 
by  the  Government  of  Mexico  de  facto,  Santa  Anna  combining 
in  his  own  person  at  the  time  all  the  powers  of  the  government, 
and  as  such  was  binding  on  the  Mexican  nation. 

Mr.  Adams. — I  desire  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman  from  Illi- 
nois if  Santa  Anna  was  not  a  prisoner  of  war  at  the  time,  and 
in  duress,  when  he  executed  that  treaty? 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply. — Santa  Anna  was  a  prisoner  of  war 
at  the  time,  and  so  was  the  entire  Government  of  Mexico,  he 
being  the  government  de  facto,  and  clothed  with  all  the  powers 
of  government,  civil  and  military.  The  government  was  a  pris- 
oner at  the  time,  and  in  duress.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Mas- 
sachusetts contend  that  a  treaty  made  with  us  under  those  cir- 
cumstances would  not  be  binding,  because,  forsooth,  the  govern- 
ment was  a  prisoner  at  the  time?  How  is  a  conquered  nation 
ever  to  make  peace  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine  is  to  prevail? 
They  refuse  to  make  peace  before  they  are  conquered,  because 
they  hope  for  victory.  They  are  incompetent  to  do  so  after- 
ward, because  they  are  in  duress !  I  fear  that,  if  this  doctrine 
shall  prevail,  these  gentlemen  will  soon  find  their  Mexican 
friends  in  a  most  pitiable  condition.  Perhaps,  if  that  govern- 
ment should  be  reduced  to  captivity,  these  gentlemen  would 
require  that  our  armies  should  retire  within  our  own  territory, 
and  set  the  government  at  liberty,  before  negotiations  for  peace 
could  be  opened.  This  may  be  their  view  of  the  subject,  but 
I  doubt  whether  it  is  the  view  which  the  American  Government 
or  the  American  people  will  deem  it  their  duty  to  act  upon. 
Our  crude  notions  of  things  may  teach  us  that  the  city  of 
Mexico  would  be  the  most  suitable  place  to  form  a  treaty  of 
peace. 

Mr.  Adams. — Has  not  that  treaty  with  Santa  Anna  been 
discarded  by  the  Mexican  Government  since? 

Mr.  Douglas. — I  presume  it  has ;  for  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
treaty  or  compact  which  that  government  ever  entered  into  that 
has  not  either  been  violated  or  repudiated  by  them  afterward. 
It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  that  the  treaty  was  entered  into 
and  sanctioned  by  the  government  de  facto  for  the  time  being. 
The  acts  of  a  government  de  facto  are  binding  on  the  nation  as 
against  foreign  nations,  without  reference  to  the  mode  in  which 
that  government  was  established,  whether  by  revolution,  usurpa- 
tion, or  rightful  and  constitutional  means. 

Mr.  Lumpkin. — The  people  of  this  country  were,  to  some 
extent,  divided  as  to  the  policy  of  admitting  Texas  as  a  State 


364  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

into  this  Union.  This,  I  admit,  was  an  honest  difference  of 
opinion;  and  the  measure  was  one  about  which  the  most  patri- 
otic might  with  propriety  at  that  time  disagree.  But,  sir,  the 
question  now  assumes  another  aspect.  Texas  has  been  admit- 
ted into  the  Union,  the  people  of  both  countries  have  been  con- 
sulted, and  they  have  solemnly  determined  to  unite  their  des- 
tiny under  the  broad  and  ample  folds  of  the  American  banner. 
The  deed  has  been  consummated  and  ratified  by  the  action  of 
both  governments ;  and  Texas  has  as  much  claim  upon  our  pro- 
tection as  any  other  State  in  this  Confederacy.  The  boundary 
of  the  United  States  is  now  extended  to  the  western  limit  of 
Texas;  her  soil  is  our  soil,  her  people  our  people;  and  her  re- 
sources contribute  to  our  greatness  in  peace  and  to  our  defence 
in  war.  We  have  done  all  this,  and  it  is  now  too  late  to  urge 
objections  to  the  policy  of  this  measure;  and  at  a  time  like 
this,  when  our  country  has  been  invaded  by  hostile  troops. — 
when  our  soldiers  have  been  captured,  wounded,  and  killed  in 
unequal  and  desperate  conflict,  and  our  army  is  exposed  to 
peril  from  the  overpowering  numbers  of  the  enemy,  it  is  trea- 
sonable to  withhold  the  supplies  necessary  for  their  relief ;  and 
no  good  but  much  evil  must  result  from  a  prolonged  discussion 
upon  the  policy  of  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  and  the 
propriety  or  impropriety  of  the  conduct  of  the  President  in 
directing  the  occupation  by  the  army  of  the  country  between  the 
Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande. 

It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  our  soil  has  been  desecrated ; 
that  our  country  has  been  invaded ;  that  a  hostile  band  of  armed 
soldiers  have  killed  and  wounded  our  citizens;  and  that  the 
American  army,  under  General  Taylor,  is  in  a  hazardous  situa- 
tion and  in  need  of  assistance.  At  a  time  like  this  shall  we  be 
struggling  for  a  mere  party  triumph?  Can  no  circumstances 
or  conditions  of  the  country,  no  perils,  however  great,  induce 
gentlemen  in  the  opposition  to  cease  their  cavilling  against  the 
Administration  or  postpone  their  hostility  to  the  President? 
Is  not  this  an  occasion  when,  for  a  time,  all  party  distinctions 
and  differences  shall  be  forgotten,  and,  with  one  voice,  with 
one  heart,  and  with  one  hand,  we  all  shall  march  forward  in 
defence  of  the  soil,  the  rights,  and  the  honor  of  the  country? 
Does  patriotism  require  at  your  hands,  as  the  faithful  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  that  you  should  now,  in  your  elevated 
position,  denounce  the  President  for  a  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution, by  making  an  unauthorized  and  unholy  invasion  on 
the  soil  and  territory  of  Mexico?  Does  your  regard  for  the 
Constitution  of  the  country  require  you  to  denounce  this  war 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  365 

with  Mexico  as  unauthorized,  unjust,  and  damnable?  Will  you 
promote  the  success  of  our  arms  by  destroying,  if  such  a  thing 
were  possible,  the  influence  of  the  President  ?  Are  you  encourag- 
ing enlistments  for  the  service  of  the  country  by  proclaiming 
to  your  countrymen  that  your  Government  is  the  aggressor? — 
that  the  President  has,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution,  without 
authority  of  Congress,  made  an  aggressive,  unjust,  and  damna- 
ble war  against  an  unoffending  sister  republic?  I  beg  such 
gentlemen  to  pause  and  reflect  before  they  give  utterance  to 
such  sentiments  in  this  place  at  a  time  like  this.  Retrace  your 
steps,  and  withdraw,  for  a  time,  these  charges,  perhaps  incon- 
siderately and  too  hastily  made,  and  come  forward  with  the 
same  ability  you  have  displayed  against  the  Executive  in  sup- 
port of  all  the  measures  necessary  to  the  efficient  and  successful 
prosecution  of  the  war  against  Mexico,  and,  my  word  for  it,  the 
result  will  be  such  as  to  rejoice  the  patriots  of  all  parties.  If 
these  charges  are  to  be  investigated,  and  if  gentlemen  will  insist 
that  they  are  made  in  good  faith,  and  that  they  are  prepared 
to  sustain  them  before  the  greatest  of  all  human  tribunals — the 
enlightened  public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world — I  call  upon 
them,  in  the  name  of  my  countrymen  of  all  parties,  to  postpone 
these  bickerings  and  discussions  until  the  rainbow  of  peace  shall 
again  span  our  country's  horizon. 

Mr.  Toombs  remarked  that  it  was  a  little  remarkable,  when 
the  country  was  represented  by  the  friends  of  the  Administra- 
tion to  be  suffering  from  foreign  invasion,  and  that  the  blood 
of  American  citizens,  shed,  as  was  contended,  on  American  soil, 
was  calling  aloud  for  immediate  vengeance,  instead  of  respond- 
ing to  those  appeals  to  patriotism  which  had  been  made,  even 
this  occasion  must  be  consecrated  to  party,  and  a  preamble 
placed  before  the  bill  to  cover  the  usurpations  of  the  Executive 
— a  preamble  declaring  what  no  man  could  rise  in  his  place  and 
say  he  knew,  that  war  had  been  made  by  Mexico.  They  could 
have  voted  supplies  to  defend  Texas  as  well  without  this  pre- 
amble; but  it  was  too  precious  an  opportunity  to  be  lost  to 
appeal  to  the  people  to  sanction  the  wrongs  and  the  usurpations 
of  the  Executive.  And  all  those  who  were  unwilling  to  subscribe 
to  this  declaration,  the  truth  of  which  they  could  not  know,  and 
which  he  believed  to  be  false,  were  to  be  branded  as  enemies  to 
their  country — as  destitute  of  patriotism.  If  this  were  patriot- 
ism, he  hoped  there  were  but  few  patriots  in  the  country. 

The  true  question  was  not  whether  we  should  vote  supplies 
for  our  army  or  protect  our  citizens  in  Texas.  These  questions 
were  extraneous  to  that  which  was  the  subject  of  discussion, 


366  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

viz. :  the  defence  of  the  Executive.  It  was  not  a  question  of 
dividing  the  country,  but  a  question,  where  is  the  boundary 
of  the  country  ?  And  it  was  a  fact  that  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
that,  out  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  propositions  for  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  there  was  but  one  that  did  not  define  its  limits;  and 
that  one  was  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the 
Senate,  and  became  a  law.  That  left  the  question  of  boundary 
an  open  question,  expressly  declaring  that  "so  much  of  the 
territory  as  rightfully  belongs  to  Texas  should  be  annexed  to 
the  United  States. ' '  Congress  could  not  untie  the  Gordian  knot 
at  that  time,  or  define  precisely  what  the  boundary  was;  it  was 
left  for  the  Executive  to  do  this,  and  Congress  was  called  upon 
to  sanction  that  act. 

He  proclaimed  in  the  face  of  this  House  and  the  country  that 
the  marching  our  army  to  the  Rio  Grande  was  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  this  country,  a  usurpation  on  the  rights  of  this  House, 
and  an  aggression  on  the  rights  of  Mexico.  Gentlemen  were 
invited  to  make  the  most  of  this  declaration. 

Early  in  the  second  year  of  the  war  (1847)  it  was 
seen  that  the  march  to  the  city  of  Mexico  to  dictate 
terms  of  peace  in  the  halls  of  Montezuma  was  not  going 
to  be  the  easy,  quick,  and  inexpensive  progress  that 
had  been  prophesied  by  the  Administration  party,  and 
a  popular  reaction  occurred  against  the  war.  A  number 
of  Senators  and  Eepresentatives  found  courage  enough 
to  vote  against  further  appropriations  for  what  they 
termed  the  "conquest"  of  a  sister  republic.  Among 
these  was  Senator  Thomas  Corwin  (Ohio),  who,  on 
February  11,  1847,  justified  his  vote  by  a  long  and  able 
speech  of  which  the  following  was  the  peroration: 


Against  the  Mexican  War 

Senator  Corwin 

What  is  the  territory,  Mr.  President,  which  you  propose  to 
wrest  from  Mexico  ?  It  is  consecrated  to  the  heart  of  the  Mexi- 
can by  many  a  well-fought  battle  with  his  old  Castilian  master. 
His  Bunker  Hills,  and  Saratogas,  and  Yorktowns  are  there. 
The  Mexican  can  say,  " There  I  bled  for  liberty!  and  shall  I  sur- 
render that  consecrated  home  of  my  affections  to  the  Anglo- 
Saxon   invaders?     What  do  they  want  with  it?     They  have 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  367 

Texas  already.  They  have  possessed  themselves  of  the  territory 
between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande.  What  else  do  they 
want  I  To  what  shall  I  point  my  children  as  memorials  of  that 
independence  which  I  bequeath  to  them,  when  those  battlefields 
shall  have  passed  from  my  possession?" 

Sir,  had  one  come  and  demanded  Bunker  Hill  of  the  people 
of  Massachusetts,  had  England's  lion  ever  showed  herself  there, 
is  there  a  man  over  thirteen  and  under  ninety  who  would  not 
have  been  ready  to  meet  him — is  there  a  river  on  this  continent 
that  would  not  have  run  red  with  blood — is  there  a  field  but 
would  have  been  piled  high  with  the  unburied  bones  of  slaugh- 
tered Americans  before  these  consecrated  battlefields  of  liberty 
should  have  been  wrested  from  us?  But  this  same  American 
goes  into  a  sister  republic,  and  says  to  poor,  weak  Mexico,  ' '  Give 
up  your  territory — you  are  unworthy  to  possess  it — I  have  got 
one-half  already — all  I  ask  of  you  is  to  give  up  the  other!" 
England  might  as  well,  in  the  circumstances  I  have  described, 
have  come  and  demanded  of  us,  "Give  up  the  Atlantic  slope — 
give  up  this  trifling  territory  from  the  Allegheny  mountains  to 
the  sea;  it  is  only  from  Maine  to  St.  Mary's — only  about  one- 
third  of  your  republic,  and  the  least  interesting  portion  of  it." 
What  would  be  the  response?  They  would  say,  we  must  give 
this  up  to  John  Bull.  Why?  "He  wants  room."  The  Senator 
from  Michigan  says  he  must  have  this.  Why,  my  worthy  Chris- 
tian brother,  on  what  principle  of  justice?    "I  want  room!" 

Sir,  look  at  this  pretence  of  want  of  room.  With  twenty 
millions  of  people  you  have  about  one  thousand  millions  of  acres 
of  land  inviting  settlement  by  every  conceivable  argument. 
But  the  Senator  from  Michigan  [Mr.  Cass]  says  we  will  be  two 
hundred  millions  in  a  few  years,  and  we  want  room.  If  I  were 
a  Mexican  I  would  tell  you,  "Have  you  not  room  in  your  own 
country  to  bury  your  dead  men  ?  If  you  come  into  mine  we  will 
greet  you  with  bloody  hands,  and  welcome  you  to  hospitable 
graves. ' ' 

The  demand  for  "room,"  said  Senator  Corwin,  had 
been  "the  plea  of  every  robber-chief  from  Nimrod  to 
the  present  hour."  The  Senator  called  the  roll  of  the 
great  conquerors,  with  significant  remarks  about  the  fit- 
ting retribution  which  had  been  meted  out  to  them  for 
their  rapacity. 

Amnion's  son  (so  was  Alexander  named),  after  all  his  vic- 
tories, died  drunk  in  Babylon!    The  vast  empire  he  conquered 


368 


GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 


to  "get  room"  became  the  prey  of  the  generals  he  had  trained; 
it  was  disparted,  torn  to  pieces,  and  so  ended. 

I  was  somewhat  amazed,  the  other  day,  to  hear  the  Senator 


THE  LAND  OP  LIBERTY 
Cartoon  by  Richard  Doyle  in  "Punch,"  18^7 

from  Michigan  [Lewis  Cass]  declare  that  Europe  had  quite  for- 
gotten us  till  these  battles  waked  them  up.  I  suppose  the  Sena- 
tor feels  grateful  to  the  President  for  " waking  up"  Europe. 
Does  the  President,  who  is,  I  hope,  read  in  civic  as  well  as  mili- 
tary lore,  remember  the  saying  of  one  who  had  pondered  upon 
history  long — long,  too,  upon  man,  his  nature  and  true  destiny  ? 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  369 

Montesquieu  did  not  think  highly  of  this  way  of  "waking  up." 
' '  Happy, ' '  says  he,  ' '  is  that  nation  whose  annals  are  tiresome. ' ' 

The  Senator  from  Michigan  has  a  different  view  of  this.  He 
thinks  that  a  nation  is  not  distinguished  until  it  is  distinguished 
in  war;  he  fears  that  the  slumbering  faculties  of  Europe  have 
not  been  able  to  ascertain  that  there  are  twenty  millions  of 
Anglo-Saxons  here,  making  railroads  and  canals,  and  speeding 
all  the  arts  of  peace  to  the  utmost  accomplishment  of  the  most 
refined  civilization.  They  do  not  know  it!  And  what  is  the 
wonderful  expedient  which  this  democratic  method  of  making 
history  would  adopt  in  order  to  make  us  known?  Storming 
cities,  desolating  peaceful,  happy  homes,  shooting  men — ay,  sir, 
such  is  war — and  shooting  women,  too ! 

This — this  is  the  way  we  are  to  be  made  known  to  Europe. 
This — this  is  to  be  the  undying  renown  of  free,  republican 
America!  "She  has  stormed  a  city — killed  many  of  its  inhabi- 
tants of  both  sexes — she  has  room  I "  So  it  will  read.  Sir,  if  this 
were  our  only  history,  then  may  God  of  his  mercy  grant  that  its 
volume  may  speedily  come  to  a  close. 

Mr.  President,  this  uneasy  desire  to  augment  our  territory 
has  depraved  the  moral  sense,  and  blunted  the  otherwise  keen 
sagacity  of  our  people.  What  has  been  the  fate  of  all  nations 
who  have  acted  upon  the  idea  that  they  must  advance?  Our 
young  orators  cherish  this  notion  with  a  fervid,  but  fatally  mis- 
taken zeal.  They  call  it  by  the  mysterious  name  of  "destiny." 
"Our  destiny,' '  they  say,  is  "onward,"  and  hence  they  argue, 
with  ready  sophistry,  the  propriety  of  seizing  upon  any  terri- 
tory and  any  people  that  may  lie  in  the  way  of  our  "fated"  ad- 
vance. 

Rome  thought,  as  you  now  think,  that  it  was  her  destiny  to 
conquer  provinces  and  nations,  and  no  doubt  she  sometimes  said 
as  you  say,  "I  will  conquer  a  peace."  And  where  now  is  she, 
the  Mistress  of  the  World?  The  spider  weaves  his  web  in  her 
palaces,  the  owl  sings  his  watch-song  in  her  towers.  Teutonic 
power  now  lords  it  over  the  servile  remnant,  the  miserable  me- 
mento of  old  and  once  omnipotent  Rome.  Sad,  very  sad,  are 
the  lessons  which  time  has  written  for  us.  Through  and  in 
them  all  I  see  nothing  but  the  inflexible  execution  of  that  old 
law,  which  ordains  as  eternal  that  cardinal  rule,  "Thou  shalt 
not  covet  thy  neighbor's  goods,  nor  anything  which  is  his." 

Since  I  have  lately  heard  so  much  about  the  dismemberment 
of  Mexico,  I  have  looked  back  to  see  how,  in  the  course  of  events, 
which  some  call  "Providence,"  it  has  fared  with  other  nations 
who  engaged  in  this  work  of  dismemberment.    I  see  that  in  the 


370  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  three  powerful  nations, 
Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia,  united  in  the  dismemberment  of 
Poland.  They  said,  too,  as  you  say,  "it  is  our  destiny."  They 
"wanted  room."  Doubtless  each  of  these  thought,  with  his 
share  of  Poland,  his  power  was  too  strong  ever  to  fear  invasion 
or  even  insult.  One  had  his  California,  another  his  New  Mexico, 
and  the  third  his  Vera  Cruz.  Did  they  remain  untouched  and 
incapable  of  harm?  Alas!  No — far,  very  far,  from  it.  Retri- 
butive justice  must  fulfill  its  destiny,  too.  A  very  few  years 
pass  off,  and  we  hear  of  a  new  man,  a  Corsican  lieutenant,  the 
self -named  "armed  soldier  of  Democracy,"  Napoleon.  He  rav- 
ages Austria,  covers  her  land  with  blood,  drives  the  Northern 
Caesar  from  his  capital,  and  sleeps  in  his  palace.  Austria  may 
now  remember  how  her  power  trampled  upon  Poland.  Did  she 
not  pay  dear,  very  dear,  for  her  California  ? 

But  has  Prussia  no  atonement  to  make?  You  see  this  same 
Napoleon,  the  blind  instrument  of  Providence,  at  work  there. 
The  thunders  of  his  cannon  at  Jena  proclaim  the  work  of  retri- 
bution for  Poland's  wrongs;  and  the  successors  of  the  Great 
Frederick,  the  drill-sergeant  of  Europe,  are  seen  flying  across 
the  sandy  plain  that  surrounds  their  capital,  right  glad  if  they 
may  escape  captivity  or  death.  But  how  fares  it  with  the  Auto- 
crat of  Russia?  Is  he  secure  in  his  share  of  the  spoils  of  Po- 
land? No.  Suddenly  we  see,  sir,  six  hundred  thousand  armed 
men  marching  to  Moscow.  Does  his  Vera  Cruz  protect  him  now  ? 
Far  from  it.  Blood,  slaughter,  desolation  spread  abroad  over 
the  land,  and  finally  the  conflagration  of  the  old  commercial 
metropolis  of  Russia  closes  the  retribution  she  must  pay  for  her 
share  in  the  dismemberment  of  her  weak  and  impotent  neigh- 
bor. Mr.  President,  a  mind  more  prone  to  look  for  the  judg- 
ments of  Heaven  in  the  doings  of  men  than  mine  cannot  fail  in 
this  to  see  the  providence  of  God.  When  Moscow  burned  it 
seemed  as  if  the  earth  was  lighted  up,  that  the  nations  might 
behold  the  scene.  As  that  mighty  sea  of  fire  gathered  and 
heaved  and  rolled  upward,  and  yet  higher,  till  its  flames  licked 
the  stars,  and  fired  the  whole  heavens,  it  did  seem  as  though  the 
God  of  the  nations  was  writing  in  characters  of  flame  on  the 
front  of  his  throne  that  doom  that  shall  fall  upon  the  strong 
nation  which  tramples  in  scorn  upon  the  weak. 

And  what  fortune  awaits  him,  the  appointed  executor  of 
this  work,  when  it  was  all  done  ?  He,  too,  conceived  the  notion 
that  his  destiny  pointed  onward  to  universal  dominion.  France 
was  too  small — Europe,  he  thought,  should  bow  down  before 
him.     But  as  soon  as  this  idea  took  possession  of  his  soul  he, 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  371 

too,  becomes  powerless.  Eight  there,  while  he  witnessed  the  hu- 
miliation, and  doubtless  meditated  the  subjugation  of  Russia, 
He  who  holds  the  winds  in  his  fist  gathered  the  snows  of  the 
north  and  blew  them  upon  his  six  hundred  thousand  men ;  they 
fled — they  froze — they  perished.  And  now  the  mighty  Napoleon, 
who  had  resolved  on  universal  dominion,  he,  too,  is  summoned 
to  answer  for  the  violation  of  that  ancient  law,  "thou  shalt  not 
covet  anything  which  is  thy  neighbor 's. ' '  How  is  the  mighty 
fallen?  He,  beneath  whose  proud  footstep  Europe  trembled,  he 
is  now  an  exile  at  Elba,  and  now  finally  a  prisoner  on  the  rock 
of  St.  Helena,  and  there,  on  a  barren  island,  in  an  unfrequented 
sea,  in  the  crater  of  an  extinguished  volcano,  there  is  the  death- 
bed of  the  mighty  conqueror.  All  his  annexations  have  come  to 
that!  His  last  hour  is  now  come,  and  he,  the  man  of  destiny, 
he  who  had  rocked  the  world  as  with  the  throes  of  an  earth- 
quake, is  now  powerless,  still — even  as  a  beggar,  so  he  died.  On 
the  wings  of  a  tempest  that  raged  with  unwonted  fury,  up  to 
the  throne  of  the  only  Power  that  controlled  him  while  he  lived, 
went  the  fiery  soul  of  that  wonderful  warrior,  another  witness 
to  the  existence  of  that  eternal  decree,  that  they  who  do  not  rule 
in  righteousness  shall  perish  from  the  earth.  He  has  found 
"room"  at  last. 

And  France,  she,  too,  has  found  "room."  Her  "eagles" 
now  no  longer  scream  along  the  banks  of  the  Danube,  the 
Po,  and  the  Borysthenes.  They  have  returned  home  to  their 
old  eyrie,  between  the  Alps,  the  Rhine,  and  the  Pyrenees;  so 
shall  it  be  with  yours.  You  may  carry  them  to  the  loftiest  peaks 
of  the  Cordilleras,  they  may  wave  with  insolent  triumph  in  the 
Halls  of  the  Montezumas,  the  armed  men  of  Mexico  may  quail 
before  them,  but  the  weakest  hand  in  Mexico,  uplifted  in  prayer 
to  the  God  of  Justice,  may  call  down  against  you  a  Power,  in 
the  presence  of  which  the  iron  hearts  of  your  warriors  shall  be 
turned  into  ashes. 

One  hundred  millions  of  dollars  will  be  wasted  in  this  fruit- 
less war.  Had  this  money  of  the  people  been  expended  in  mak- 
ing a  railroad  from  your  northern  lakes  to  the  Pacific,  as  one  of 
your  citizens  has  begged  of  you  in  vain,  you  would  have  made 
a  highway  for  the  world  between  Asia  and  Europe.  Your 
Capitol  then  would  be  within  thirty  or  forty  days'  travel  of 
any  and  every  point  on  the  map  of  the  civilized  world.  Through 
this  great  artery  of  trade  you  would  have  carried  through  the 
heart  of  your  own  country  the  teas  of  China,  and  the  spices  of 
India,  to  the  markets  of  England  and  France.  Why,  why,  Mr. 
President,  did  we  abandon  the  enterprises  of  peace  and  betake 


372  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

ourselves  to  the  barbarous  achievements  of  war?  Why  did  we 
"forsake  this  fair  and  fertile  field  to  batten  on  that  moor"? 

There  is  one  topic  connected  with  this  subject  which  I  trem- 
ble when  I  approach,  and  yet  I  cannot  forbear  to  notice  it.  It 
meets  you  in  every  step  you  take.  It  threatens  you  which  way 
soever  you  go  in  the  prosecution  of  this  war.  I  allude  to  the 
question  of  slavery.  Opposition  to  its  further  extension,  it 
must  be  obvious  to  every  one,  is  a  deeply  rooted  determination 
with  men  of  all  parties  in  what  we  call  the  non-slaveholding 
States.  It  is  vain  now  to  speculate  about  the  reasons  for  this. 
Gentlemen  of  the  South  may  call  it  prejudice,  passion,  hypocrisy, 
fanaticism.  I  shall  not  dispute  with  them  now  on  that  point.  The 
great  fact  that  it  is  so,  and  not  otherwise,  is  what  it  concerns 
us  to  know.  You  nor  I  cannot  alter  or  change  this  opinion  if 
we  would.  These  people  only  say  we  will  not,  cannot,  consent 
that  you  shall  carry  slavery  where  it  does  not  already  exist. 
They  do  not  seek  to  disturb  you  in  that  institution,  as  it  exists 
in  your  States.  Enjoy  it  if  you  will,  and  as  you  will.  This  is 
their  language,  this  their  determination. 

How  is  it  in  the  South  ?  Can  it  be  expected  that  they  should 
expend  in  common  their  blood  and  their  treasure  in  the  acquisi- 
tion of  immense  territory,  and  then  willingly  forego  the  right 
to  carry  thither  their  slaves,  and  inhabit  the  conquered  country 
if  they  please  to  do  so  ?  Sir,  I  know  the  feelings  and  opinions 
of  the  South  too  well  to  calculate  on  this. 

If,  then,  we  persist  in  war,  which  if  it  terminate  in  anything 
short  of  a  mere  wanton  waste  of  blood  as  well  as  money,  must 
end  (as  this  bill  proposes)  in  the  acquisition  of  territory,  to 
which  at  once  this  controversy  must  attach — this  bill  would 
seem  to  be  nothing  less  than  a  bill  to  produce  internal  commo- 
tion. Should  we  prosecute  this  war  another  moment,  or  expend 
one  dollar  in  the  purchase  or  conquest  of  a  single  acre  of  Mexi- 
can land,  the  North  and  the  South  are  brought  into  collision  on 
a  point  where  neither  will  yield. 

Oh,  Mr.  President,  it  does  seem  to  me,  if  hell  itself  could 
yawn  and  vomit  up  the  fiends  that  inhabit  its  penal  abodes,  com- 
missioned to  disturb  the  harmony  of  this  world,  and  dash  the 
fairest  prospect  of  happiness  that  ever  allured  the  hopes  of  men, 
the  first  step  in  the  consummation  of  this  diabolical  purpose 
would  be  to  light  up  the  fires  of  internal  war  and  plunge  the 
sister  States  of  this  Union  into  the  bottomless  gulf  of  civil 
strife.  We  stand  this  day  on  the  crumbling  brink  of  that  gulf 
— we  see  its  bloody  eddies  wheeling  and  boiling  before  us — shall 
we  not  pause  before  it  be  too  late !    How  plain  again  is  here  the 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  373 

path,  I  may  add  the  only  way  of  duty,  of  prudence,  of  true 
patriotism.  Let  us  abandon  all  idea  of  acquiring  further  ter- 
ritory, and  by  consequence  cease  at  once  to  prosecute  this  war. 
Let  us  call  home  our  armies,  and  bring  them  at  once  within  our 
own  acknowledged  limits.  Show  Mexico  that  you  are  sincere 
when  you  say  you  desire  nothing  by  conquest.  She  has  learned 
that  she  cannot  encounter  you  in  war,  and  if  she  had  not  she 
is  too  weak  to  disturb  you  here.  Tender  her  peace,  and,  my  life 
on  it,  she  will  then  accept  it.  But  whether  she  shall  or  not,  you 
will  have  peace  without  her  consent.  It  is  your  invasion  that 
has  made  war,  your  retreat  will  restore  peace.  Let  us  then  close 
forever  the  approaches  of  internal  feud,  and  so  return  to  the 
ancient  concord  and  the  old  way  of  national  prosperity  and 
permanent  glory.  Let  us  here,  in  this  temple  consecrated  to  the 
Union,  perform  a  solemn  lustration ;  let  us  wash  Mexican  blood 
from  our  hands,  and  on  these  altars,  in  the  presence  of  that 
image  of  the  Father  of  his  country  that  looks  down  upon  us, 
swear  to  preserve  honorable  peace  with  all  the  world,  and  eter- 
nal brotherhood  with  each  other. 

Other  statesmen  began  to  exonerate  themselves  from 
having  been  parties  to  the  conflict,  and  to  charge  each 
other  with  this  responsibility.  The  most  notable  of  these 
recriminations  occurred  in  the  Senate  on  February  24 
when  Thomas  H.  Benton  (Missouri)  charged  John  C. 
Calhoun  (South  Carolina)  with  being  the  author  of  the 
war  while  acting  as  Secretary  of  State  under  President 
Tyler,1  and  Senator  Calhoun  replied  acknowledging  re- 
sponsibility for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  any  de- 
fensive measures  which  that  act  involved,  but  throwing 
upon  President  Polk  and  his  supporters,  among  whom 
Senator  Benton  might,  for  certain  acts,  be  numbered, 
all  the  blame  for  involving  the  country  in  a  war  of  in- 
vasion, thus  putting  the  Government  in  the  wrong,  and 
presenting  the  United  States  before  the  world  in  the 
evil  light  of  an  aggressor. 

Lincoln's  "Spot  Besolutions" 

On  December  22,  1847,  Abraham  Lincoln  (Illinois)" 
introduced  in  the  House  his  famous  "Spot  Besolutions, ' ' 
calling  on  the  President  for  information: 

1  See  page  334. 


374  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

First.  Whether  the  spot  on  which  the  blood  of  our  citizens 
was  shed,  as  in  his  message  declared,  was  or  was  not  within  the 
territory  of  Spain,  at  least  after  the  treaty  of  1819  until  the 
Mexican  revolution. 

Second.  Whether  that  spot  is  or  is  not  within  the  territory 
which  was  wrested  from  Spain  by  the  revolutionary  government 
of  Mexico. 

Third.  Whether  that  spot  is  or  is  not  within  a  settlement 
of  people,  which  settlement  has  existed  ever  since  long  before 
the  Texas  revolution,  and  until  its  inhabitants  fled  before  the 
approach  of  the  United  States  army. 

Fourth.  Whether  that  settlement  is  or  is  not  isolated  from 
any  and  all  other  settlements  by  the  Gulf  and  the  Rio  Grande 
on  the  south  and  west,  and  by  wide  uninhabited  regions  on  the 
north  and  east. 

Fifth.  Whether  the  people  of  that  settlement,  or  a  majority 
of  them,  or  any  of  them,  have  ever  submitted  themselves  to  the 
government  or  laws  of  Texas  or  of  the  United  States,  by  consent 
or  by  compulsion,  either  by  accepting  office,  or  voting  at  elections, 
or  paying  tax,  or  serving  on  juries,  or  having  process  served 
upon  them,  or  in  any  other  way. 

Sixth.  Whether  the  people  of  that  settlement  did  or  did 
not  flee  from  the  approach  of  the  United  States  army,  leaving 
unprotected  their  homes  and  their  growing  crops,  before  the 
blood  was  shed,  as  in  the  message  stated;  and  whether  the  first 
blood,  so  shed,  was  or  was  not  shed  within  the  inclosure  of  one 
of  the  people  who  had  thus  fled  from  it. 

Seventh.  Whether  our  citizens,  whose  blood  was  shed,  as  in 
his  message  declared,  were  or  were  not,  at  that  time,  armed  offi- 
cers and  soldiers,  sent  into  that  settlement  by  the  military  order 
of  the  President,  through  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Eighth.  Whether  the  military  force  of  the  United  States 
was  or  was  not  so  sent  into  that  settlement  after  General  Taylor 
had  more  than  once  intimated  to  the  War  Department  that,  in 
his  opinion,  no  such  movement  was  necessary  to  the  defence  or 
protection  of  Texas.1 

On  January  12,  1848,  Mr.  Lincoln  spoke  upon  his 
resolutions.    His  conclusion  was  as  follows : 

1  These  resolutions  Mr.  Lincoln  took  great  pride  in  at  the  time,  consider- 
ing them  a  political  coup  de  main,  if  not,  indeed,  a  coup  d'etat,  but  they 
proved  to  be  a  coup  de  grace  to  his  immediate  political  aspirations.  His 
opponents  ridiculed  them  as  "spot"  resolutions,  with  such  effect  that  Lin- 
coln 's  constituents  turned  against  him;  he  did  not  seek  a  renomination,  and 
a  Democrat  was  elected  to  succeed  him. — Henry  C.  Whitney,  "Life  of  Lin- 
coln," vol.  I,  page  154. 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR  375 

Arraignment  of  President  Polk 
Abraham  Lincoln,  M.  C. 

If  the  President  can  show  that  the  soil  was  ours  where  the 
first  blood  of  the  war  was  shed  then  I  am  with  him  for  his  justi- 
fication. But  if  he  cannot  or  will  not  do  this  then  I  shall  be 
fully  convinced  of  what  I  more  than  suspect  already — that  he 
is  deeply  conscious  of  being  in  the  wrong ;  that  he  feels  the  blood 
of  this  war,  like  the  blood  of  Abel,  is  crying  to  Heaven  against 
him;  that  originally  having  some  strong  motive — what,  I  will 
not  stop  now  to  give  my  opinion  concerning — to  involve  the  two 
countries  in  a  war,  and  trusting  to  escape  scrutiny  by  fixing  the 
public  gaze  upon  the  exceeding  brightness  of  military  glory — 
that  attractive  rainbow  that  rises  in  showers  of  blood — that 
serpent 's  eye  that  charms  to  destroy — he  plunged  into  it,  and  has 
swept  on  and  on  till,  disappointed  in  his  calculation  of  the  ease 
with  which  Mexico  might  be  subdued,  he  now  finds  himself  he 
knows  not  where.  How  like  the  half-insane  mumbling  of  a 
fever  dream  is  the  whole  war  part  of  his  late  message !  At  one 
time  telling  us  that  Mexico  has  nothing  whatever  that  we  can 
get  but  territory;  at  another  showing  us  how  we  can  support 
the  war  by  levying  contributions  on  Mexico.  At  one  time  urg- 
ing the  national  honor,  the  security  of  the  future,  the  prevention 
of  foreign  interference,  and  even  the  good  of  Mexico  herself  as 
among  the  objects  of  the  war;  at  another  telling  us  that  "to 
reject  indemnity,  by  refusing  to  accept  a  cession  of  territory, 
would  be  to  abandon  all  our  just  demands,  and  to  wage  the  war, 
bearing  all  its  expenses,  without  a  purpose  or  definite  object.' ' 
So,  then,  this  national  honor,  security  of  the  future,  and  every- 
thing but  territorial  indemnity  may  be  considered  the  no-pur- 
poses and  indefinite  objects  of  the  war! 

As  to  the  mode  of  terminating  the  war  and  securing  peace  the 
President  is  equally  wandering  and  indefinite.  First,  it  is  to 
be  done  by  a  more  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  in  the  vital 
parts  of  the  enemy's  country;  and,  after  apparently  talking 
himself  tired  on  this  point,  the  President  drops  down  into  a 
half-despairing  tone,  and  tells  us  that  ' '  with  a  people  distracted 
and  divided  by  contending  factions,  and  a  government  subject 
to  constant  changes  by  successive  revolutions,  the  continued 
success  of  our  arms  may  fail  to  secure  a  satisfactory  peace.,, 
Then  he  suggests  the  propriety  of  wheedling  the  Mexican  people 
to  desert  the  counsels  of  their  own  leaders,  and,  trusting  in  our 
protestations,  to  set  up  a  government  from  which  we  can  secure 


376  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

a  satisfactory  peace ;  telling  us  that  ' '  this  may  become  the  only 
mode  of  obtaining  such  a  peace.' '  But  soon  he  falls  into  doubt 
of  this,  too;  and  then  drops  back  onto  the  already  half-aban- 
doned ground  of  "more  vigorous  prosecution. ' '  All  this  shows 
that  the  President  is  in  nowise  satisfied  with  his  own  positions. 
First  he  takes  up  one,  and  in  attempting  to  argue  us  into  it  he 
argues  himself  out  of  it,  then  seizes  another  and  goes  through 
the  same  process,  and  then,  confused  at  being  able  to  think  of 
nothing  new,  he  snatches  up  the  old  one  again,  which  he  has 
some  time  before  cast  off.  His  mind,  taxed  beyond  its  power,  is 
running  hither  and  thither,  like  some  tortured  creature  on  a 
burning  surface,  finding  no  position  on  which  it  can  settle  down 
to  be  at  ease. 

Again,  it  is  a  singular  omission  in  this  message  that  it  no- 
where intimates  when  the  President  expects  the  war  to  termi- 
nate. At  its  beginning,  General  Scott  was  by  this  same  Presi- 
dent driven  into  disfavor,  if  not  disgrace,  for  intimating  that 
peace  could  not  be  conquered  in  less  than  three  or  four  months. 
But  now,  at  the  end  of  about  twenty  months,  during  which  time 
our  arms  have  given  us  the  most  splendid  successes,  every  de- 
partment and  every  part,  land  and  water,  officers  and  privates, 
regulars  and  volunteers,  doing  all  that  men  could  do,  and  hun- 
dreds of  things  which  it  had  ever  before  been  thought  men  could 
not  do — after  all  this,  this  same  President  gives  a  long  message, 
without  showing  us  that  as  to  the  end  he  himself  has  even  an 
imaginary  conception.  As  I  have  before  said,  he  knows  not 
where  he  is.  He  is  a  bewildered,  confounded,  and  miserably 
perplexed  man.  God  grant  he  may  be  able  to  show  there  is  not 
something  about  his  conscience  more  painful  than  all  his  mental 
perplexity. 


On  February  2,  1848,  a  treaty  of  peace  known  from 
the  place  where  it  was  made  as  the  1 *  Treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo,' '  was  signed  by  Mexico  and  the  United  States, 
and  on  July  4  was  proclaimed  to  be  in  force.  The 
American  negotiator  was  Nicholas  P.  Trist  of  Virginia. 
By  the  terms  of  this  treaty  the  Rio  Grande  was  estab- 
lished as  the  boundary  of  the  eastern  portion  of  the 
cession,  and  in  the  west  the  Rivers  Gila  and  Colorado 
were  so  followed  as  to  give  the  United  States  all  the 
territory  then  known  as  New  Mexico  and  Upper  Cali- 
fornia. The  United  States  agreed  to  pay  Mexico 
$15,000,000,  and  to  assume  the  payment  of  all  claims 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR 


377 


adjudged  against  Mexico   in  the  conventions   of  1839 
and  1843. 


AN    AVAILABLE    CANDIDATE 
THE  ONE  QUALIFICATION  FOB  A  WHIG  PRESIDENT 

[Caricature   of   General  Seott   in  1852  ] 
From  the  collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society 


CHAPTER  XIII 

The  Trent  Affair 

Captain  Charles  Wilkes,  U.  S.  N.,  of  the  San  Jacinto,  Takes  John  Slidell 
and  James  M.  Mason,  Confederate  Commissioners,  to  Great  Britain,  from 
British  steamer  Trent — Act  Is  Approved  by  Gideon  Welles,  Secretary  of 
the  Navy — Negotiations  with  British  Government — William  H.  Seward, 
Secretary  of  State,  Delivers  Up  the  Commissioners  to  Great  Britain — 
Debate  in  the  Senate  on  This  Act:  in  Favor,  Charles  Sumner  [Mass.]; 
Opposed,  John  P.  Hale  [N.  H.]. 

) 

IN  the  Civil  War  the  chief  hope  of  the  Southern  Con- 
federacy lay  in  securing  foreign  intervention.  In 
the  beginning  of  the  conflict  it  sent  as  commis- 
sioners to  Great  Britain  ex-United  States  Senators 
James  M.  Mason  (Virginia)  and  John  Slidell 
(Louisiana).  On  October  12,  1861,  they  sailed  with  their 
families  on  the  blockade-runner  Theodora  from  Charles- 
ton to  Havana,  and  there  took  the  British  mail  steamer 
Trent  sailing  for  England  via  St.  Thomas,  a  Danish 
island  in  the  West  Indies.  On  November  8  Captain 
Charles  Wilkes  of  the  United  States  war  frigate  San 
Jacinto  compelled  the  Trent,  which  had  not  yet  arrived 
at  St.  Thomas,  to  stop;  entering  the  British  steamer 
he  took  the  commissioners  on  board  of  his  own  vessel 
and  carried  them  to  Fort  Warren  in  Boston  harbor, 
where  they  were  held  as  prisoners  of  war. 

This  act  was  approved  by  Gideon  Welles,  Secretary 
of  the  Navy.  In  his  report  to  Congress  on  December  2, 
he  said: 

The  prompt  and  decisive  action  of  Captain  Wilkes  on  this 
occasion  merited  and  received  the  emphatic  approval  of  the 
department ;  and  if  a  too  generous  forbearance  was  exhibited  by 
him  in  not  capturing  the  vessel  which  had  these  Rebel  enemies 
on  board,  it  may,  in  view  of  the  special  circumstances,  and  of 

378 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  379 

its  patriotic  motives,  be  excused;  but  it  must  by  no  means  be 
permitted  to  constitute  a  precedent  hereafter,  for  the  treatment 
of  any  case  of  similar  infraction  of  neutral  obligations  by  for- 
eign vessels  engaged  in  commerce  or  the  carrying  trade. 

However  Lincoln's  logical  instincts  engendered  in 
his  mind  the  opinion  that  Wilkes '  action  was  technically 
unauthorized  and  would  be  seized  upon  by  England  as 
a  pretext  to  involve  the  nation  in  a  war.  He  therefore 
conferred  with  the  Hon.  Thomas  Ewing  [0.],  a  retired 
statesman  of  the  preceding  generation,  who  assured  him 
that  Captain  Wilkes  had  been  wrong  by  the  law  of 
nations.  Accordingly,  on  November  30  a  dispatch  was 
sent  to  our  minister  recounting  the  facts,  disavowing 
any  complicity  in  Captain  Wilkes'  act,  and  expressing 
a  desire  to  treat  with  England  on  the  subject.  On  the 
same  day  the  British  minister  for  foreign  affairs  sent 
a  note  to  Lord  Lyons,  the  British  minister  at  Washing- 
ton, expressing  the  desire  of  the  British  Cabinet  that 
our  nation  would  disavow  any  authority  in  the  affair, 
would  yield  up  the  prisoners,  and  make  an  apology; 
all  of  which  were  impressed  with  the  force  and  authority 
of  an  ultimatum. 

Long  after  the  war  it  transpired  (in  the  publication 
of  the  letters  of  Lord  Palmerston,  Prime  Minister  of 
Great  Britain  at  the  time  of  the  Trent  affair)  that  the 
legal  advisers  of  the  British  Crown  on  November  11, 
1861,  two  weeks  before  the  seizure  of  the  Confederate 
commissioners  was  known  in  England,  had  delivered  an 
opinion  by  which  an  act  such  as  that  of  Captain  Wilkes 
was  justified.  This  opinion  was  based  on  the  uniform 
practice  of  Great  Britain  herself  as  upheld  by  no  less 
an  authority  on  maritime  law  than  Sir  William  Scott, 
Lord  Stowell.  It  was  given  in  reference  to  an  American 
war  vessel  (other  than  the  San  Jacinto)  which  was  actu- 
ally in  an  English  port  at  the  time,  as  to  whether  she 
had  the  right,  by  international  law,  to  stop  and  search  the 
West  India  packet  then  expected  soon  to  arrive  in  Eng- 
land. 

One  of  these  letters  of  Lord  Palmerston  was  to  the 
editor  of  the  London  Times.    It  said: 


380  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

It  appeared  that  according  to  the  principles  of  international 
law  laid  down  in  our  courts  by  Lord  Stowell  and  practiced  and 
enforced  by  us,  a  belligerent  has  a  right  to  stop  and  search  any 
neutral  not  being  a  ship  of  war  and  being  found  on  the  high 
seas  and  being  suspected  of  carrying  enemy's  dispatches;  and 
that  consequently  this  American  cruiser  might  by  our  own  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  stop  the  West  India  packet,  search 
her,  and  if  the  Southern  men  and  their  dispatches  and  creden- 
tials were  found  on  board  either  take  them  out  or  seize  the 
packet  and  carry  her  back  to  New  York  for  trial. 

Two  days  later  Lord  Palmerston  wrote  to  the  Queen 
to  the  same  effect. 

However,  it  seemed  good  to  the  British  Administra- 
tion directly  to  reverse  their  policy  in  this  matter.  By 
acceding  to  this  reversal  the  United  States  Government 
thereby  secured  the  British  acknowledgment  of  its  con- 
tention, adhered  to  through  war  and  peace  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  nation,  that  the  " right  of  search' '  was 
in  contravention  of  the  true  principles  of  international 
law.  Secretary  Seward  therefore  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity thus  afforded  him,  and  on  December  26  handed 
Lord  Lyons  a  dispatch  in  which  he  waived  the  question 
of  Captain  Wilkes '  right  to  do  as  he  did,  and,  ingeniously 
taking  advantage  of  the  officer's  infraction  of  the  prize 
law  (in  not  bringing  the  prisoners  into  a  prize  court 
for  adjudication),  he  ordered  their  discharge.  The  Con- 
federate commissioners  were  given  over  to  the  custody 
of  a  British  vessel  by  which  they  were  transported  to 
London.  There  they  made  no  political  impression  and 
remained  abroad  until  they  died,  expatriated. 

The  Trent  Affair 

Senate,  December  26,  1861-January  20,  1862 

Discussion  of  the  Trent  affair  came  up  in  the  next 
Congress  on  December  26,  upon  a  resolution  of  Senator 
John  P.  Hale  (New  Hampshire)  asking  the  President 
to  transmit  to  the  Senate  the  correspondence  with  Great 
Britain  regarding  it,  which  motion,  after  speaking 
thereon,  he  withdrew,  indicating  that  he  wished  merely 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  381 

to  denounce   the   surrender   of   the   Confederate  com- 
missioners.   Said  Senator  Hale: 

To  my  mind  a  more  fatal  act  could  not  mark  the  history  of 
this  country — an  act  that  would  surrender  at  once  to  the  arbi- 
trary demand  of  Great  Britain  all  that  was  won  in  the  Revolu- 
tion, reduce  us  to  the  position  of  a  second-rate  power,  and  make 
us  the  vassal  of  Great  Britain.  I  would  go  as  far  as  any  rea- 
sonable man  would  go  for  peace,  but  no  further.  I  would  not 
be  unwilling  to  submit  this  subject  to  the  arbitration  of  any  of 
the  great  powers  of  Europe ;  but  I  would  not  submit  to  the  arbi- 
trary, the  absolute  demand  of  Great  Britain,  to  surrender  these 
men,  and  humble  our  flag  even  to  escape  from  a  war  with  Great 
Britain.  No  man  would  make  more  honorable  concessions  than 
I  would  to  preserve  the  peace ;  but  sometimes  peace  is  less  hon- 
orable and  more  calamitous  than  war.  The  Administration 
which  is  now  in  power  ought  to  know  what  the  feeling  of  the 
country  is.  If  my  friend  from  Indiana  [Henry  S.  Lane]  will 
permit  me,  I  will  repeat  what  he  said  to  me  this  morning  at  the 
breakfast  table.  [Mr.  Lane  assented.]  The  honorable  Senator 
said  the  State  of  Indiana  has  now  sixty  thousand  men  in  the 
field,  and  she  would  double  that  number  in  sixty  days  if  a  war 
with  Great  Britain  should  be  brought  about.  I  have  seen  many 
gentlemen,  and  I  have  seen  none,  not  a  man  can  be  found,  who 
is  in  favor  of  this  surrender;  for  it  would  humiliate  us  in  the 
eyes  of  the  world,  irritate  our  own  people,  and  subject  us  to 
their  indignant  scorn.  If  we  are  to  have  war  with  Great  Brit- 
ain it  will  not  be  because  we  refuse  to  surrender  Messrs.  Mason 
and  Slidell;  that  is  a  mere  pretence.  If  war  shall  come  it  will 
be  because  Great  Britain  has  determined  to  force  war  upon  us. 
They  would  humiliate  us  first  and  fight  us  afterward.  If  we 
are  to  be  humiliated,  I  prefer  to  take  it  after  a  war,  and  not  be- 
fore. It  is  true,  war  would  be  a  sacrifice  to  the  people.  I  think 
I  see  its  horrors,  its  disasters,  its  carnage,  its  blood,  and  its' 
desolation;  but,  sir,  let  war  come;  let  your  cities  be  battered 
down,  your  armies  be  scattered,  your  fields  barren,  to  preserve 
untarnished  the  national  honor;  a  regenerating  spirit  among 
your  people  will  restore  your  armies,  and  rebuild  your  cities, 
and  make  fruitful  your  fields.  Francis  the  First  of  France,  at 
the  battle  of  Pavia,  his  army  overthrown  and  scattered  and  him- 
self a  prisoner,  exclaimed,  "All  is  lost  but  honor  !"  That  honor 
preserved  then  was  the  germ  of  the  greatness  and  the  glory  of 
France  to-day.  I  pray  that  this  Administration  will  not  sur- 
render our  national  honor.  I  tell  them  that  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands and  hundreds  of  thousands  will  rush  to  the  battlefield, 


382  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

and  bare  their  breasts  to  its  perils  rather  than  submit  to  degra- 
dation. 

If  this  Administration  will  not  listen  to  the  voice  of  the 
people  they  will  find  themselves  engulfed  in  a  fire  that  will  con- 
sume them  like  stubble ;  they  will  be  helpless  before  a  power  that 
will  hurl  them  from  their  places.  If  war  comes  we  shall  not, 
Mr.  President,  be  entirely  without  consolation  and  encourage- 
men.  If  war  shall  be  forced  upon  us,  as  some  gentlemen  sup- 
pose, we  shall  be  fighting  in  a  great  cause — the  cause  of  consti- 
tutional liberty,  whose  baptism  centuries  ago  was  in  the  blood 
which  flowed  in  England  from  the  scaffold,  and  which  animates 
millions  to-day  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  even  of  Englishmen, 
whatever  may  be  the  policy  of  their  administration.  If  this 
war  is  determined  upon  in  England  it  will  be  because  it  is  out 
of  the  hands  of  statesmen  and  in  those  of  pettifoggers,  who  are 
called  the  law  officers  of  the  Crown,  who,  it  seems,  can  rush  us 
into  war.  If  we  are,  sir,  to  preserve  peace  it  must  be  with 
honor.  But  if  we  are  to  have  war — I  do  not  say  that  we  shall — 
it  will  not  be  without  its  advantages.  It  will  be  a  war  that  can- 
not be  carried  on  without  fighting;  and  if  we  only  understand 
our  true  position  we  can  proclaim  to  every  man  who  speaks  the 
English  language  on  God 's  footstool  the  cause  for  which  we  are 
fighting;  and  this  appeal  will  reach  the  hearts  of  millions  of 
Englishmen,  Irishmen,  and  Frenchmen. 

We  have  heard,  Mr.  President,  some  fears  expressed  that 
Louis  Napoleon  is  taking  sides  with  England,  and  that  we  are 
to  contend  with  the  combined  energies  of  both  France  and  Eng- 
land. I  do  not  believe  it.  I  believe  if  Louis  Napoleon  harbors 
one  single  sentiment,  if  his  action  is  guided  by  one  single  prin- 
ciple, if  he  has  one  single  feeling  that  is  predominant  over  all 
others,  it  is  to  have  a  fair  field  to  retrieve  the  disastrous  issue 
of  Waterloo.  And,  besides,  sir,  all  over  this  country,  through- 
out Canada,  and  in  Ireland,  there  are  hundreds  and  thousands 
and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  true-hearted  Irishmen  who  have 
long  prayed  for  an  opportunity  to  retaliate  upon  England  for 
the  wrongs  which  for  centuries  that  government  has  inflicted 
upon  their  fatherland.  If  we  know  our  own  position  and  our 
own  strength — I  refer  to  the  strength  of  principle — there  will 
be  nothing  to  be  afraid  of  in  this  contest.  If  war  must  come, 
let  it  come ;  but  I  tell  you,  and  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  a  prophet, 
I  think  the  slightest  sagacity  in  public  councils  will  sustain  me 
in  the  position  that  if  England  enters  upon  this  war  she  will 
enter  upon  one  of  more  than  doubtful  contingency.  She  will  be 
at  war  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  with  the  irresistible  genius  of 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  383 

liberty,  and  with  the  sympathies  of  her  own  best  people;  she 
will  war  with  a  cause  that  is  dear  to  the  hearts  of  patriots  the 
world  over;  she  will  war  with  a  cause  upon  which  we  may  in- 
voke with  confidence  the  blessings  of  the  God  of  Liberty,  who 
will  not  fail  in  His  own  good  time  and  in  His  own  way  to  vindi- 
cate His  own  cause. 

I  again  say,  if  this  war  must  come,  let  it  come;  and  let  us 
thank  God  that  He  has  made  us  the  chosen  instrument  in  His 
hand  to  vindicate  His  own  cause.    I  withdraw  my  motion. 

Senator  Charles  Sumner  (Massachusetts)  replied,  re- 
newing the  motion  in  order  to  speak  upon  it.  He  begged 
the  Senate  not  to  judge  the  Administration  on  insuffi- 
cient evidence. 

I  have  myself  a  firm  conviction  that  this  question  will  be 
peaceably  and  honorably  adjusted.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  a 
question  to  be  settled  by  war;  and  I  hail  with  gratitude  the 
suggestion  of  the  honorable  Senator,  that,  in  making  his  speech, 
which  may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  called  a  war  speech,  he  has 
expressed  a  willingness  to  submit  the  question  to  arbitration. 
Let  me  not  be  understood  as  intimating  that  that  mode  is  under 
consideration.  I  am  not  authorized  to  say  anything  on  the  ques- 
tion. I  content  myself  with  repeating  what  I  have  already  said, 
that  it  is  in  safe  hands,  and  that  it  will  be  better  for  us  to  re- 
serve ourselves  for  the  question  when  it  shall  be  presented  in  a 
practical  form,  and  not  to  speak  on  hypotheses  which  the  facts 
may  afterward  show  to  have  been  false.    I  withdraw  the  motion. 

The  President  voluntarily  transmitted  the  corre- 
spondence on  January  6,  1862.  Senator  Sumner  there- 
upon moved  its  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Eelations,  and  announced  that  he  would  speak  later  on 
the  subject.    He  contented  himself  with  saying: 

There  is,  Mr.  President,  an  important  question  of  interna- 
tional law  discussed  in  the  papers,  interesting  not  only  to  our 
own  country,  but  to  all  foreign  countries.  As  a  precedent  it 
will  be  of  great  value.  If  Great  Britain  has  been  well  sustained 
in  her  recent  course  it  is  only  because  she  has  turned  her  back 
upon  the  practice  and  precedents  of  her  history,  and  adopted 
for  the  moment  the  practice  and  the  precedents  of  American 
history. 


384  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

On  January  20  Senator  Sumner  made  the  promised 
speech. 

Mr.  President,  every  principle  of  international  law,  when 
justly  and  authoritatively  settled,  becomes  a  safeguard  of  peace 
and  a  landmark  of  civilization.  It  constitutes  a  part  of  that 
code  which  is  the  supreme  law,  above  all  municipal  laws,  binding 
the  whole  commonwealth  of  nations.  Such  a  settlement  may  be 
by  a  general  congress  of  nations,  or  it  may  be  through  the  gen- 
eral accord  of  treaties;  or  it  may  be  by  a  precedent  established 
under  such  conspicuous  circumstances,  with  all  nations  as  as- 
senting witnesses,  that  it  shall  at  once  become  in  itself  a  com- 
manding rule  of  international  conduct.  Especially  is  this  the 
case  if  disturbing  pretensions  long  maintained  to  the  detriment 
of  civilization  are  practically  renounced  by  the  power  which 
has  maintained  them.  Without  any  congress  or  treaties  such  a 
precedent  has  been  established. 

Here  the  Senator  recounted  the  facts  in  the  case. 

"While  on  their  way,  the  embassadors  were  arrested  by  Cap- 
tain "Wilkes,  of  the  United  States  steamer  San  Jacinto,  an  ac- 
complished officer,  already  well  known  by  his  scientific  explora- 
tions, who,  on  this  occasion,  acted  without  instructions  from  his 
Government.  If,  in  this  arrest,  he  forgot  for  a  moment  the 
fixed  policy  of  the  Republic,  which  has  been  from  the  beginning 
like  a  frontlet  between  the  eyes,  and  transcended  the  law  of 
nations,  as  the  United  States  have  always  declared  it,  his  apol- 
ogy must  be  found  in  the  patriotic  impulse  by  which  he  was 
inspired,  and  the  British  examples  which  he  could  not  forget. 
They  were  the  enemies  of  his  country,  embodying  in  themselves 
the  triple  essence  of  worst  enmity — treason,  conspiracy,  and 
rebellion;  and  they  wore  a  pretended  embassadorial  character 
which,  as  he  supposed,  according  to  high  British  authority,  ren- 
dered them  liable  to  be  stopped. 

If  this  transaction  be  regarded  exclusively  in  the  light  of 
British  precedents;  if  we  follow  the  seeming  authority  of  the 
British  admiralty,  speaking  by  its  greatest  voice ;  and  especially 
if  we  accept  the  oft-repeated  example  of  British  cruisers,  up- 
held by  the  British  Government  against  the  oft-repeated  protests 
of  the  United  States,  we  shall  not  find  it  difficult  to  vindicate 
it.  The  act  becomes  questionable  only  when  brought  to  the 
touchstone  of  these  liberal  principles  which,  from  the  earliest 
times,  the  American  Government  has  openly  avowed  and  sought 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  385 

to  advance,  and  which  other  European  nations  have  accepted 
with  regard  to  the  sea.  Indeed,  Great  Britain  cannot  complain 
except  by  now  adopting  those  identical  principles;  and,  should 
we  undertake  to  vindicate  the  act,  it  can  be  done  only  by  repudi- 
ating those  identical  principles.  Our  two  cases  will  be  reversed. 
In  the  struggle  between  Laertes  and  Hamlet  the  two  combatants 
exchanged  rapiers;  so  that  Hamlet  was  armed  with  the  rapier 
of  Laertes  and  Laertes  was  armed  with  the  rapier  of  Hamlet. 
And  now  on  this  sensitive  question  a  similar  exchange  has  oc- 
curred. Great  Britain  is  armed  with  American  principles,  while 
to  us  are  left  only  those  British  principles  which,  throughout 
our  history,  have  been  constantly,  deliberately,  and  solemnly  re- 
jected. 

An  English  writer  put  the  case  for  his  government  as  fol- 
lows : 

"It  is  not  to  the  right  of  search  that  we  object,  hut  to  the 
following  seizure  without  process  of  law.  What  we  deny  is  the 
right  of  a  naval  officer  to  stand  in  place  of  a  prize  court  and 
adjudicate,  sword  in  hand,  with  a  sic  volo  sic  jubeo  l  on  the  very 
deck  which  is  a  part  of  our  territory.' ' 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  present  complaint  of  the  British 
Government  is  not  founded  on  the  assumption  by  the  American 
war  steamer  of  the  belligerent  right  of  search ;  nor  on  the  ground 
that  this  right  was  exercised  on  board  a  neutral  vessel  between 
two  neutral  ports  nor  that  it  was  exercised  on  board  a  mail 
steamer,  sustained  by  a  subvention  from  the  Crown,  and  offi- 
cered in  part  from  the  royal  navy ;  nor  that  it  was  exercised  in 
a  case  where  the  penalties  of  contraband  could  not  attach;  but 
it  is  founded  simply  and  precisely  on  the  idea  that  persons  other 
than  apparent  officers  in  the  military  or  naval  service  cannot  be 
taken  out  of  a  neutral  ship  at  the  mere  will  of  the  officer  who 
exercises  the  right  of  search,  and  without  any  form  of  trial. 
Therefore,  the  law  of  nations  has  been  violated,  and  the  conduct 
of  Captain  Wilkes  must  be  disavowed,  while  men  who  are  trait- 
ors, conspirators,  and  rebels,  all  in  one,  are  allowed  to  go  free. 

Surely  that  criminals,  though  dyed  in  guilt,  should  go  free 
is  better  than  that  the  law  of  nations  should  be  violated,  espe- 
cially in  any  rule  by  which  war  is  restricted  and  the  mood  of 
peace  is  enlarged ;  for  the  law  of  nations  cannot  be  violated  with- 
out overturning  the  protection  of  the  innocent  as  well  as  the 
guilty.  On  this  general  principle  there  can  be  no  question.  It 
is  but  an  illustration  of  that  important  maxim,  recorded  in  the 
Latin  of  Fortescue,  "Better  that  many  guilty  should  escape 

lil&o  I  will,  so  I  order." 


386  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

than  one  innocent  man  should  suffer, ' '  with  this  difference,  that 
in  the  present  case  a  few  guilty  escape,  while  the  innocent  every- 
where on  the  sea  obtain  new  security.  And  this  security  becomes 
more  valuable  as  a  triumph  of  civilization,  when  it  is  considered 
that  it  was  long  refused,  even  at  the  cannon's  mouth. 

Do  not  forget,  sir,  that  the  question  involved  in  this  con- 
troversy is  strictly  a  question  of  law — precisely  like  a  question 
of  trespass  between  two  neighbors.  The  British  cabinet  began 
proceedings  by  taking  the  opinion  of  their  law  advisers,  pre- 
cisely as  an  individual  begins  proceedings  in  a  suit  at  law  by 
taking  the  opinion  of  his  attorney.  To  make  such  a  question 
a  case  of  war,  or  to  suggest  that  war  is  a  proper  mode  of  decid- 
ing it,  is  simply  to  revive,  in  colossal  proportions,  the  exploded 
ordeal  by  battle,  and  to  imitate  those  dark  ages  when  such  pro- 
ceeding was  openly  declared  to  be  the  best  and  most  honorable 
mode  of  deciding  even  an  abstract  point  of  law. 

In  similar  spirit  has  it  been  latterly  proposed,  amid  the 
amazement  of  the  civilized  world,  to  withdraw  the  point  of  law, 
now  raised  by  Great  Britain,  from  peaceful  adjudication  and 
submit  it  to  trial  by  combat.  But  the  irrational  anachronism 
of  such  a  proposition  becomes  more  flagrant  from  the  inconsis- 
tency of  the  party  which  makes  it;  for  it  cannot  be  forgotten 
that,  in  times  past,  on  this  identical  point  of  law,  Great  Britain 
persistently  held  an  opposite  ground  from  that  which  she  now 
takes. 

A  question  of  international  law  should  not  be  presented  on 
any  mere  argumentum  ad  hominem.  It  would  be  of  little  value 
to  show  that  Captain  Wilkes  was  sustained  by  British  authority 
and  practice,  if  he  were  condemned  by  international  law  as  in- 
terpreted by  his  own  country.  It  belongs  to  us  now,  nay,  let  it 
be  our  pride,  at  any  cost  of  individual  prepossessions  or  tran- 
sitory prejudices,  to  uphold  that  law  in  all  its  force,  as  it  was 
often  declared  by  the  best  men  in  our  history,  and  illustrated 
by  national  acts;  and  let  us  seize  the  present  occasion  to  conse- 
crate its  positive  and  unequivocal  recognition.  In  exchange  for 
\the  prisoners  set  free  we  receive  from  Great  Britain  a  practical 
assent,  too  long  deferred,  to  a  principle  early  propounded  by 
our  country,  and  standing  forth  on  every  page  of  our  history. 
The  same  voice  which  asks  for  their  liberation  renounces  in  the 
same  breath  an  odious  pretension,  for  whole  generations  the 
scourge  of  peaceful  commerce. 

In  municipal  questions  Great  Britain  drew  inspiration  from 
her  own  native  common  law,  which  was  instinct  with  freedom; 
but  in  maritime  questions  arising  under  the  law  of  nations  this 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  387 

power  seems  to  have  acted  on  that  obnoxious  principle  of  the 
Roman  law,  positively  discarded  in  municipal  questions,  Quod 
principi  placuit  legis  vigor  em  habet,1  and  too  often,  under  this 
inspiration,  to  have  imposed  upon  weaker  nations  her  own  ar- 
bitrary will.  The  time  has  been  when  she  pretended  to  sov- 
ereignty over  the  seas  surrounding  the  British  isles,  as  far  as 
Cape  Finisterre  to  the  south,  and  Vanstaten  in  Norway  to  the 
north.  But,  driven  from  this  pretension,  other  pretensions,  less 
local  but  hardly  less  offensive,  were  avowed.  The  boast  of 
"Rule,  Britannia,  rule  the  waves,' '  was  practically  adopted  by 
British  courts  of  admiralty,  and  universal  maritime  rights  were 
subjected  to  the  special  exigencies  of  British  interests.  In  the 
consciousness  of  strength,  and  with  a  navy  that  could  not  be 
opposed,  this  power  has  put  chains  upon  the  sea. 

The  commerce  of  the  United  States,  as  it  began  to  whiten 
the  ocean,  was  cruelly  decimated  by  these  arbitrary  pretensions. 
But  the  loss  of  property  stung  less  than  the  outrage  of  im- 
pressment, by  which  foreigners,  under  the  protection  of  the 
American  flag,  and  also  American  citizens,  without  any  form  of 
trial,  and  at  the  mere  mandate  of  a  navy  officer,  who  for  the 
moment  acted  as  a  judicial  tribunal,  were  dragged  away  from 
the  deck  which  should  have  been  to  them  a  sacred  altar.  This 
outrage,  which  was  feebly  vindicated  by  the  municipal  claim  of 
Great  Britain  to  the  services  of  her  own  subjects,  was  enforced 
arrogantly  and  perpetually  on  the  high  seas,  where  municipal 
law  is  silent  and  international  law  alone  prevails.  The  bel- 
ligerent right  of  search,  derived  from  international  law,  was 
employed  for  this  purpose,  and  the  quarter-deck  of  every  British 
cruiser  was  made  a  floating  judgment-seat.  The  practice  began 
early,  and  was  continued  constantly;  nor  did  it  discriminate 
among  its  victims.  It  is  mentioned  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  re- 
peated by  a  British  writer  on  international  law,  that  two 
nephews  of  Washington,  on  their  way  home  from  Europe,  were 
ravished  from  the  protection  of  the  American  flag,  without  any 
judicial  proceedings,  and  placed  as  common  seamen  under  the 
ordinary  discipline  of  British  ships  of  war.  The  victims  were 
counted  by  thousands.  At  our  Department  of  State  six  thou- 
sand cases  were  recorded,  and  it  was  estimated  that  at  least  as 
many  more  might  have  occurred,  of  which  no  information  had 
been  received.  If  a  pretension  so  intrinsically  lawless  could  be 
sanctioned  by  precedent,  Great  Britain  would  have  succeeded  in 
interpolating  it  into  the  law  of  nations. 

Protest,    argument,   negotiation,    correspondence,    and    war 
1 ' ( What  is  pleasing  to  the  prince  has  the  force  of  law. ' ' 


388  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

itself — unhappily  the  last  reason  of  republics  as  of  kings — were 
all  employed  in  vain  by  the  United  States  to  procure  a  renun- 
ciation of  this  intolerable  pretension.  The  ablest  papers  in  our 
diplomatic  history  are  devoted  to  this  purpose;  and  the  only 
serious  war  in  which  we  have  been  engaged,  until  summoned  to 
encounter  this  rebellion,  was  to  overcome  by  arms  this  very  pre- 
tension which  would  not  yield  to  reason.  Beginning  in  the  last 
century,  the  correspondence  is  at  last  closed  by  the  recent  reply 
of  Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons.  The  long-continued  occasion  of 
conflict  is  now  happily  removed,  and  the  pretension  disappears 
forever — to  take  its  place  among  the  curiosities  of  the  past. 

But  I  do  not  content  myself  with  asserting  the  persistent  op- 
position of  the  American  Government.  It  belongs  to  the  argu- 
ment, that  I  should  exhibit  this  opposition  and  the  precise 
ground  on  which  it  was  placed — being  identical  with  that  now 
adopted  by  Great  Britain.  And  here  the  testimony  is  complete. 
If  you  will  kindly  follow  me,  you  shall  see  it  from  the  beginning 
in  the  public  life  of  our  country,  and  in  the  authentic  records  of 
our  Government. 


Here  the  speaker  quoted  extensively  from  opinions 
of  various  American  Secretaries  of  State:  Thomas 
Jefferson,  Timothy  Pickering,  John  Marshall,  James 
Madison,  Daniel  Webster,  and  Lewis  Cass,  and  of  Presi- 
dents John  Adams,  James  Monroe,  and  John  Quincy 
Adams.  He  also  quoted  an  expression  of  the  British 
doctrine  made  by  the  Prince  Regent  (afterwards  George 
IV )  on  January  9,  1813,  in  refusing  an  armistice  which 
had  been  proposed  by  President  Madison  on  condition 
that  Great  Britain  abandon  her  practice  of  searching 
American  vessels  and  impressing  seamen  thereon  on  the 
ground  of  their  being  British  subjects : 

"His  Boyal  Highness  can  never  admit  that,  in  the  exercise  of  the  un- 
doubted and  hitherto  undisputed  right  of  searching  neutral  merchant  ves- 
sels in  time  of  war,  the  impressment  of  British  seamen,  when  found  therein, 
can  be  deemed  any  violation  of  a  neutral  flag.  Neither  can  he  admit  that 
the  taking  of  such  seamen  from  on  board  such  vessels  can  be  considered  by 
any  neutral  state  as  a  hostile  measure  or  a  justifiable  cause  of  war." 

The  war  was  closed  by  the  treaty  at  Ghent;  but  perversely 
the  British  pretension  was  not  renounced. 

Such  is  an  authentic  history  of  this  British  pretension,  and 
of  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  met  by  our  Government.  If 
Captain  Wilkes  is  right,  then  throughout  all  these  international 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  389 

debates,  extending  over  at  least  two  generations,  we  have  been 
wrong. 

But  it  has  been  sometimes  said  the  steam  packet  having  on 
board  the  rebel  emissaries  was  on  this  account  liable  to  capture, 
and  therefore  the  error  of  Captain  Wilkes  in  taking  the  emis- 
saries was  simply  an  error  of  form  and  not  of  substance.  I  do 
not  stop  to  consider  whether  an  exercise  of  summary  power 
against  which  our  Government  has  so  constantly  protested  can 
be  under  any  circumstances  an  error  merely  of  form,  for  the 
policy  of  our  Government,  most  positively  declared  in  its  diplo- 
macy, and  also  attested  in  numerous  treaties,  leaves  no  room  to 
doubt  that  a  neutral  ship  with  belligerent  passengers — not  in 
the  military  or  naval  service — is  not  liable  to  capture,  and  there- 
fore the  whole  proceeding  was  wrong,  not  only  because  the  pas- 
sengers were  taken  from  the  ship,  but  also  because  the  ship, 
howsoever  guilty  morally,  was  not  guilty  legally  in  receiving 
such  passengers  on  board.  If  this  question  were  argued  on 
English  authorities  it  might  be  otherwise;  but  according  to 
American  principles  the  ship  was  legally  innocent. 

Here  the  speaker  cited  numerous  treaties. 

But  still  another  question  occurs.  Beyond  all  doubt  there 
were  " dispatches"  from  the  rebel  belligerents  on  board  the  ship 
— such  " dispatches"  as  rebels  can  write.  Public  report,  the 
statement  of  persons  on  board  the  ship,  and  the  boastful  declara- 
tion of  Jefferson  Davis  in  a  public  document  that  these  emis- 
saries were  proceeding  under  an  appointment  from  him — which 
appointment  would  be  a  ' 'dispatch"  of  the  highest  character 
— seem  to  place  this  fact  beyond  denial.  Assuming  this  fact, 
the  ship  was  liable  to  capture  and  to  be  carried  off  for  adjudica- 
tion, according  to  British  authorities — unless  the  positive  judg- 
ment of  Sir  William  Scott  in  the  case  of  the  Atalanta  (6  Rob- 
inson R.,  p.  440),  and  also  the  Queen's  proclamation  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  rebellion,  where  "dispatches"  are  enumer- 
ated among  contraband  articles,  are  treated  as  nullities,  or  so 
far  modified  in  their  application  as  to  be  words,  and  nothing 
more.  But,  however  binding  and  peremptory  these  authorities 
may  be  in  Great  Britain,  they  cannot  be  accepted  to  reverse  the 
standing  policy  of  the  United  States,  which  here  again  leaves 
no  room  for  doubt.  In  order  to  give  precision  to  the  rights 
which  it  claimed  and  at  the  same  time  accorded  on  the  ocean, 
our  Government  has  sought  to  explain  in  treaties  what  it  meant 
by  contraband.     As  early  as  1778,  in  the  treaty  with  France, 


390  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

negotiated  by  Benjamin  Franklin,  after  specifying  contraband 
articles,  without  including  dispatches,  it  is  declared  that 

"Free  goods  are  all  other  merchandise  and  things  which 
are  not  comprehended  and  particularly  mentioned  in  the  fore- 
going enumeration  of  contraband  goods." — Statutes  at  Large, 
Vol.  8,  p.  26. 

This  was  before  the  judgment  of  Sir  William  Scott,  recog- 
nizing dispatches  as  contraband ;  but  in  other  treaties  subsequent 
to  this  judgment,  and  therefore  practically  discarding  it,  after 
enumerating  contraband  articles,  without  specifying  "dis- 
patches, ' •  the  same  provision  is  introduced. 

Clearly,  then,  according  to  American  principles  and  prac- 
tice, the  ship  was  not  liable  to  capture  on  account  of  dispatches 
on  board. 

But  there  is  yet  another  question  which  remains.  Assuming 
that  dispatches  may  be  contraband,  would  their  presence  on 
board  a  neutral  ship,  sailing  between  two  neutral  ports,  render 
the  voyage  illegal?  The  mail  steamer  was  sailing  between  Ha- 
vana, a  port  of  Spain,  and  St.  Thomas,  a  port  of  Denmark. 
Here,  again,  if  we  bow  to  British  precedent,  the  answer  will  be 
prompt.  The  British  oracle  has  spoken.  In  a  well-considered 
judgment,  Sir  William  Scott  declares  that  dispatches  taken  on 
board  a  neutral  ship,  sailing  from  a  neutral  country  and  bound 
for  another  neutral  country,  are  contraband;  but  that,  where 
there  was  reason  to  believe  the  master  ignorant  of  their  char- 
acter, "it  is  not  a  case  in  which  the  property  is  to  be  confiscated, 
although  in  this,  as  in  every  other  instance  in  which  the  enemy's 
dispatches  are  found  on  board  a  vessel,  he  has  justly  subjected 
himself  to  all  the  inconveniences  of  seizure  and  detention,  and 
to  all  the  expenses  of  those  judicial  inquiries  which  they  have 
occasioned."  (The  Rapid,  Edwards's  Rep.,  221.)  Such  is  the 
law  of  nations  according  to  Great  Britain. 

But  even  if  this  rule  had  not  been  positively  repudiated  by 
the  United  States  it  is  so  inconsistent  with  reason,  and,  in  the 
present  condition  of  maritime  commerce,  so  utterly  impracti- 
cable, that  it  can  find  little  favor.  If  a  neutral  voyage  between 
two  neutral  ports  is  rendered  illegal  on  this  account,  then  the 
postal  facilities  of  the  world,  and  the  costly  enterprises  by  which 
they  are  conducted,  will  be  exposed  to  interruptions  under  which 
they  must  at  times  be  crushed,  to  the  infinite  damage  of  univer- 
sal commerce.  If  the  rule  is  applicable  in  one  sea  it  is  applicable 
in  all  seas,  and  there  is  no  part  of  the  ocean  which  may  not  be 
vexed  by  its  enforcement.  It  would  reach  to  the  Mediterranean 
and  to  the  distant  China  seas  as  easily  as  to  the  Bahama  Straits, 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  391 

and  it  would  be  equally  imperative  in  the  chops  of  the  British 
channel.  Not  only  the  stately  mail  steamers  which  traverse  the 
ocean  would  be  liable  to  detention  and  possible  confiscation,  but 
the  same  penalties  must  attach  to  the  daily  packets  between 
Dover  and  Calais.  The  simple  statement  of  such  a  consequence, 
following  directly  from  the  British  rule,  throws  an  instant  doubt 
over  it  which  the  eloquent  judgment  of  Lord  Stowell  cannot 
remove. 

And  now,  as  I  conclude  what  I  have  to  say  on  contraband 
in  its  several  divisions,  I  venture  to  assert  that  there  are  two 
rules  in  regard  to  it,  which  the  traditional  policy  of  our  country 
has  constantly  declared,  and  which  it  has  embodied  in  treaty 
stipulations  with  every  power  which  could  be  persuaded  to  adopt 
them:  First,  that  no  article  shall  be  contraband  unless  it  be 
expressly  enumerated  and  specified  as  such  by  name.  Secondly, 
that  when  such  articles,  so  enumerated  and  specified,  shall  be 
found  by  the  belligerent  on  board  a  neutral  ship,  the  neutral 
shall  be  permitted  to  deliver  them  to  the  belligerent  whenever, 
by  reason  of  their  bulk  in  quantity,  such  delivery  may  be  pos- 
sible, and  then  the  neutral  shall,  without  further  molestation, 
proceed  with  all  remaining  innocent  cargo  to  his  destination, 
being  any  port,  neutral  or  hostile,  which  at  the  time  is  not 
actually  blockaded. 

Such  was  the  early  fixed  policy  of  our  country  with  regard 
to  contraband  in  neutral  bottoms.  It  is  recorded  in  several  of 
our  earlier  European  treaties.  Approximation  to  it  will  be 
found  in  other  European  treaties,  showing  our  constant  effort 
in  this  direction.  But  this  policy  was  not  supported  by  the 
British  theory  and  practice  of  international  law,  which  was 
especially  active  during  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution ;  and 
to  this  fact  may,  perhaps,  be  ascribed  something  of  the  difficulty 
which  our  Government  encountered  in  its  efforts  to  secure  for 
this  liberal  policy  the  complete  sanction  of  European  states. 
But  in  our  negotiations  with  the  Spanish- American  states  the 
theory  and  practice  of  Great  Britain  were  less  felt ;  and  so  to-day 
that  liberal  policy,  embracing  the  two  rules  already  stated  touch- 
ing contraband,  is  among  all  American  States  the  public  law  of 
contraband,  stipulated  and  fixed  in  solemn  treaties. 

Of  course  this  whole  discussion  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
that  the  rebels  are  to  be  regarded  as  belligerents,  which  is  the 
character  already  accorded  to  them  by  Great  Britain.  If  they 
are  not  regarded  as  belligerents,  then  the  proceeding  of  Captain 
Wilkes  is  indubitably  illegal  and  void.  To  a  political  offender, 
however  deep  his  guilt — though  burdened  with  the  undying 


392  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

execrations  of  all  honest  men,  and  bending  beneath  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  ruin  which  he  has  brought  upon  his  country — the 
asylum  of  a  foreign  jurisdiction  is  sacred,  whether  on  shore  or 
on  sea ;  and  it  is  among  the  proudest  boasts  of  England,  at  least 
in  recent  days,  that  the  exiles  of  defeated  democracies  as  well  as 
of  defeated  dynasties  have  found  a  sure  protection  beneath  her 
meteor  flag.  And  yet  this  power  has  not  always  accorded  to 
other  flags  what  she  claimed  for  her  own.  One  of  the  objections 
diplomatically  presented  by  Great  Britain  at  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century  to  any  renunciation  of  the  pretension  of 
impressment  was  "that  facility  would  be  given,  particularly  in 
the  British  Channel,  by  the  immunity  claimed  by  American 
vessels,  to  the  escape  of  traitors"  (State  Papers,  Vol.  3,  p.  86), 
thus  assuming  that  traitors — the  companions  of  Robert  Emmett, 
in  Ireland,  or  the  companions  of  Home  Took,  in  England — 
ought  to  be  arrested  on  board  a  neutral  ship  \  but  that  the  arrest 
could  be  accomplished  only  through  the  pretension  of  impress- 
ment. But  this  flagrant  instance  cannot  be  a  precedent  for  the 
United  States,  which  has  always  maintained  the  right  of  asylum 
as  firmly  as  it  has  rejected  the  pretension  of  impressment. 

If  I  am  correct  in  this  review  then  the  conclusion  is  inevi- 
table. The  seizure  of  the  rebel  emissaries  on  board  a  neutral 
ship  cannot  be  justified  according  to  our  best  American  prece- 
dents and  practice.  There  seems  to  be  no  single  point  where 
the  seizure  is  not  questionable,  unless  we  choose  to  invoke  British 
precedents  and  practice,  which  beyond  doubt  led  Captain  Wilkes 
into  the  mistake  which  he  committed. 

Mr.  President,  let  the  rebels  go.  Two  wicked  men,  ungrate- 
ful to  their  country,  are  let  loose  with  the  brand  of  Cain  upon 
their  foreheads.  Prison  doors  are  opened;  but  principles  are 
established  which  will  help  to  free  other  men,  and  to  open  the 
gates  of  the  sea.  Never  before  in  her  active  history  has  Great 
Britain  ranged  herself  on  this  side.  Such  an  event  is  an  epoch. 
Novus  sceclorum  nascitur  ordo.1  To  the  liberties  of  the  sea  this 
power  is  now  committed.  To  a  certain  extent  this  cause  is  now 
under  her  tutelary  care.  If  the  immunities  of  passengers,  not 
in  the  military  or  naval  service,  as  well  as  of  sailors,  are  not 
directly  recognized,  they  are  at  least  implied;  while  the  whole 
pretension  of  impressment,  so  long  the  pest  of  neutral  commerce, 
and  operating  only  through  the  lawless  adjudication  of  a  quar- 
ter-deck, is  made  absolutely  impossible.  Thus  is  the  freedom  of 
the  seas  enlarged,  not  only  by  limiting  the  number  of  persons 
who  are  exposed  to  the  penalties  of  war.  but  by  driving  from 
1  ' '  A  new  order  of  the  ages  is  born. ' ; 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  393 

it  the  most  offensive  pretension  that  ever  stalked  upon  its  waves. 
To  such  conclusion  Great  Britain  is  irrevocably  pledged.  Nor 
treaty  nor  bond  was  needed.  It  is  sufficient  that  her  late  ap- 
peal can  be "  vindicated  only  by  a  renunciation  of  early,  long- 
continued  tyranny.  Let  her  bear  the  rebels  back.  The  consid- 
eration is  ample;  for  the  sea  became  free  as  this  altered  power 
went  forth  upon  it,  steering  westward  with  the  sun,  on  an  errand 
of  liberation. 

In  this  surrender,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  our  Government 
does  not  even  " stoop  to  conquer."  It  simply  lifts  itself  to  the 
height  of  its  own  original  principles.  The  early  efforts  of  its 
best  negotiators — the  patriot  trials  of  its  soldiers  in  an  unequal 
war — have  at  length  prevailed,  and  Great  Britain,  usually  so 
haughty,  invites  us  to  practice  upon  those  principles  which  she 
has  so  strenuously  opposed.  There  are  victories  of  force.  Here 
is  a  victory  of  truth.  If  Great  Britain  has  gained  the  custody 
of  two  rebels,  the  United  States  have  secured  the  triumph  of 
their  principles. 

If  this  result  be  in  conformity  with  our  cherished  principles 
it  will  be  superfluous  to  add  other  considerations;  and  yet  I 
venture  to  suggest  that  estranged  sympathies  abroad  may  be 
secured  again  by  an  open  adhesion  to  those  principles,  which 
already  have  the  support  of  the  Continental  governments  of 
Europe,  smarting  for  years  under  British  pretensions.  The 
powerful  organs  of  public  opinion  on  the  Continent  are  also 
with  us.  Hautefeuille,  whose  work  on  the  Law  of  Nations  is 
the  arsenal  of  neutral  rights,  has  entered  into  this  debate  with 
a  direct  proposition  for  the  release  of  these  emissaries  as  a  testi- 
mony to  the  true  interpretation  of  international  law.  And  a 
journal,  which  of  itself  is  an  authority,  the  Revue  des  Deux 
Mondes,  hopes  that  the  United  States  will  let  the  rebels  go, 
simply  because  • '  it  would  be  a  triumph  of  the  rights  of  neutrals 
to  apply  them  for  the  advantage  of  a  nation  which  has  ever 
opposed  and  violated  them. ' ' 

But  this  triumph  is  not  enough.  The  sea-god  will  in  future 
use  his  trident  less;  but  the  same  principles  which  led  to  the 
present  renunciation  of  early  pretensions  naturally  conduct  to 
yet  further  emancipation  of  the  sea.  The  work  of  maritime 
civilization  is  not  finished.  And  here  the  two  nations,  equally 
endowed  by  commerce,  and  matching  each  other,  while  they  sur- 
pass all  other  nations,  in  peaceful  ships,  may  gloriously  unite  in 
setting  up  new  pillars,  which  shall  mark  new  triumphs,  render- 
ing the  ocean  a  highway  of  peace,  instead  of  a  field  of  blood. 

The  congress  of  Paris,  in  1856,  where  were  assembled  the 


394  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

plenipotentiaries  of  Great  Britain,  France,  Austria,  Prussia, 
Russia,  Sardinia,  and  Turkey,  has  already  led  the  way.  Adopt- 
ing the  early  policy  of  the  United  States,  often  proposed  to  for- 
eign nations,  this  congress  has  authenticated  two  important 
changes  in  restraint  of  belligerent  rights ;  first,  that  the  neutral 
flag  shall  protect  enemy's  goods  except  contraband  of  war,  and 
secondly,  that  neutral  goods,  except  contraband  of  war,  are  not 
liable  to  capture  under  an  enemy's  flag.  This  is  much.  An- 
other proposition,  that  privateering  should  be  abolished,  was  de- 
fective in  two  respects:  first,  because  it  left  nations  free  to  em- 
ploy private  ships  under  a  public  commission  as  ships  of  the 
navy,  and,  therefore,  was  nugatory;  and,  secondly,  because,  if 
not  nugatory,  it  was  too  obviously  in  the  special  interest  of 
Great  Britain,  which,  through  her  commanding  navy,  would 
thus  be  left  at  will  to  rule  the  sea.  No  change  can  be  practicable 
which  is  not  equal  in  its  advantages  to  all  nations;  for  the 
Equality  of  Nations  is  not  merely  a  dry  dogma  of  international 
law,  but  a  vital  national  sentiment  common  to  all  nations.  This 
cannot  be  forgotten;  and  every  proposition  must  be  brought 
sincerely  to  this  equitable  test. 

But  there  is  a  way  in  which  privateering  can  be  effectively 
abolished  without  any  shock  to  the  Equality  of  Nations.  A 
simple  proposition,  that  private  property  shall  enjoy  the  same 
immunity  on  the  ocean  which  it  now  enjoys  on  land,  will  at  once 
abolish  privateering,  and  relieve  the  commerce  of  the  ocean 
from  its  greatest  perils,  so  that,  like  commerce  on  land,  it  shall 
be  undisturbed  except  by  illegal  robbery  and  theft.  Such  a 
proposition  will  operate  equally  for  the  advantage  of  all  na- 
tions. On  this  account,  and  in  the  policy  of  peace,  which  our 
Government  has  always  cultivated,  it  has  been  already  presented 
to  foreign  governments  by  the  United  States.  You  have  not 
forgotten  the  important  paper  in  which  Mr.  Marcy  did  this  ser- 
vice, or  the  recent  efforts  of  Mr.  Seward  in  the  same  direction. 
In  order  to  complete  the  efficacy  of  this  proposition,  and  still 
further  to  banish  belligerent  pretensions,  contraband  of  war 
should  be  abolished,  so  that  all  ships  may  freely  navigate  the 
ocean  without  being  exposed  to  any  question  as  to  the  character 
of  persons  or  things  on  board.  The  Right  of  Search,  which,  on 
the  occurrence  of  war,  becomes  an  omnipresent  tyranny,  sub- 
jecting every  neutral  ship  to  the  arbitrary  invasion  of  every 
belligerent  cruiser,  would  then  disappear.  It  would  drop,  as 
the  chains  drop  from  an  emancipated  slave ;  or,  rather,  it  would 
only  exist  as  an  occasional  agent,  under  solemn  treaties,  in  the 
war  waged  by  civilization  against  the  slave  trade;  and  then  it 


THE    TRENT    AFFAIR  395 

would  be  proudly  recognized  as  an  honorable  surrender  to  the 
best  interests  of  humanity,  glorifying  the  flag  which  made  it. 

With  the  consummation  of  these  reforms  in  maritime  law, 
not  forgetting  blockades  under  international  law,  war  would 
be  despoiled  of  its  most  vexatious  prerogatives,  while  innocent 
neutrals  would  be  exempt  from  its  torments.  The  statutes  of 
the  sea,  thus  refined  and  elevated,  will  be  the  agents  of  peace 
instead  of  the  agents  of  war.  Ships  and  cargoes  will  pass  un- 
challenged from  shore  to  shore;  and  those  terrible  belligerent 
rights,  under  which  the  commerce  of  the  world  has  so  long  suf- 
fered, will  cease  from  troubling.  In  this  work  our  country  be- 
gan early.  It  had  hardly  proclaimed  its  own  independence 
before  it  sought  to  secure  a  similar  independence  for  the  sea.  It 
had  hardly  made  a  Constitution  for  its  own  Government  before 
it  sought  to  establish  a  constitution  similar  in  spirit  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  sea.  If  it  did  not  prevail  at  once,  it  was  because 
it  could  not  overcome  the  unyielding  opposition  of  Great  Britain. 
And  now  the  time  is  come  when  this  champion  of  belligerent 
rights  "has  changed  his  hand  and  checked  his  pride. "  Wel- 
come to  this  new  alliance.  Meanwhile,  amid  all  present  excite- 
ments, amid  all  present  trials,  it  only  remains  for  us  to  uphold 
the  constant  policy  of  the  Republic,  and  to  stand  fast  on  the 
ancient  ways. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

The  Puechase  of  Alaska 

William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State,  Negotiates  Treaty  with  Eussia  for 
the  Purchase  of  Alaska — Senate  Confirms  Treaty,  and  United  States 
Enters  into  Possession — Debate  in  the  House  on  Appropriating  $7,200,- 
000  for  the  Purchase:  in  Favor,  General  Nathaniel  P.  Banks  [Mass.], 
Eufus  P.  Spalding  [O.],  General  Eobert  C.  Schenck  [O.],  Thaddeus 
Stevens  [Pa.],  Leonard  Myers  [Pa.],  William  Higby  [Cal.] ;  Opposed, 
Cadwalader  C.  Washburn  [Wis.],  Benjamin  F.  Butler  [Mass.],  John  A. 
Peters  [Me.],  Samuel  Shellabarger  [O.],  Hiram  Price  [la.],  Dennis  Mc- 
Carthy [N.  Y.] — Bill  Is  Passed  with  Preamble  Implying  That  Consent 
of  the  House  Is  Essential  to  a  Treaty;  Senate  Eejects  Bill  on  This 
Account;  Compromise  Preamble  Is  Adopted  Which  Is  a  Virtual  Victory 
for  the  House,  and  Bill  Is  Passed  by  the  Senate  and  Approved  by 
President  Johnson. 

ON  March  30,  1867,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary 
of  State  in  President  Johnson7^  administration, 
formed  a  treaty  with  Eussia  (absolute  in  its 
terms,  not  referring  to  the  ratification  of  the  Senate  and 
the  appropriation  by  Congress  of  the  purchase  price), 
whereby  the  United  States  purchased  Alaska  (then 
known  as  Russian  America)  for  $7,200,000  in  gold 
(equivalent  to  more  than  $10,000,000  in  "greenbacks"). 
The  ratification  of  the  Senate  was Teadily  granted,  there 
being  but  two  dissenting  votes,  but  there  was  much  op- 
position in  the  House  to  making  the  required  appropria- 
tion. Indeed  it  was  not  attempted  to  do  this  until  more 
than  a  year  after  the  treaty  had  been  made.  With  a 
view  to  forcing  Congress  to  make  the  appropriation  the 
astute  Secretary  of  State,  immediately  after  the  treaty, 
took  formal  possession  of  the  country  in  the  name  of 
the  United  States. 

On    May    18,    1868,    General    Nathaniel    P.    Banks 
(Massachusetts)  introduced  in  the  House  a  bill  making 

396 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  397 

the  necessary  appropriation   to   effect  the  treaty.     It 
came  before  the  House  for  discussion  on  June  30. 

PUKCHASE  OF  ALASKA 

House  of  Representatives,  June  30-July  14,  1868 

General  Banks  held  that,  a  treaty  being  the  "supreme 
law  of  the  land,"  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress  to  give 
effect  to  that  law  by  such  legislation  as  was  necessary 
to  carry  it  into  effect.  He  gave  a  review  of  the  origin 
of  the  treaty. 

It  was  suggested  by  those  inquisitive,  energetic,  enterprising, 
and  powerful  men  who  have  made  this  continent  what  it  is ;  by 
men  who  went  from  my  own  section — Massachusetts  and  Maine 
— when  the  trumpet  sounded  for  emigration  to  California,  and 
who,  with  a  still  more  adventurous  spirit  than  that  which  sent 
them  to  California,  were  led  to  the  more  northern  territory, 
which  was  then  thought  to  be  a  bleak  and  barren  wilderness. 
They  looked  upon  the  broad  Pacific  Ocean,  the  innumerable 
islands  and  bays  that  skirt  and  cluster  upon  and  crown  the 
northern  Pacific,  and  they  saw,  from  their  experience  in  New 
England  and  in  the  British  provinces,  what  they  believed  to  be 
the  germ  of  an  inappreciable  wealth  and  power  for  themselves 
and  their  country..  They  applied  to  the  Russian  Government  for 
the  privilege  to  share  in  what  they  might  do  to  increase  the 
prosperity  of  that  country.  The  Russian  Government  refused  it. 
Russia  had  ceded  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  the 
convention  of  1824  the  right  of  fishery  in  those  waters  near  the 
shore  and  other  privileges  connected  with  it.  Russia  believed 
that  the  privileges  of  that  convention  had  been  abused  by  Ameri- 
can citizens;  and  when,  at  the  end  of  ten  years,  the  privileges 
expired  by  limitation,  she  declined  to  renew  them,  and  thus 
deprived  American  citizens  of  the  liberty  of  fishing  in  those 
waters. 

Russia  had  always  been  liberal  and  friendly  toward  this  Gov- 
ernment. The  Administration,  perceiving  the  necessity  and  im- 
portance of  this  privilege,  applied  for  a  renewal  of  the  treaty. 
But,  upon  a  full  discussion  of  that  question  and  with  a  state- 
ment of  her  interests  which  we  could  not  resist,  she  declined  to 
accord  it,  and  we  were  thus  without  any  other  right  than  that  of 
pursuing  our  course  upon  the  Pacific  as  upon  the  Indian  or  the 
other  oceans  of  the  globe.  The  enterprising  citizens  to  whom  I 
have  referred,  regarding  with  an  experienced  eye  the  importance 


398  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

of  this  privilege  to  our  citizens  on  the  Pacific  coast,  endeavored 
to  persuade  the  Government  to  obtain  for  them  the  privileges 
which  had  been  lost.  The  Russian  Government  declined  as  be- 
fore, but  it  conceded  what  was  better  than  the  right  of  the  ex- 
tension of  fishery;  it  conceded  to  this  Government  the  right  of 
purchase,  and  the  territory  to  which  the  fisheries  were  incident 
Was  purchased  for  $7,200,000. 

The  territory  that  has  been  transferred  to  us  by  the  treaty 
of  1867  is  substantially  contiguous  territory  to  the  United  States. 
I  speak  of  its  contiguity,  not  as  being  entirely  without  inter- 
ruption, but  as  contiguous  to  territory  long  claimed  and  un- 
wisely surrendered  by  us,  and  as  a  part  of  the  continent  which 
we  could  not  allow  to  passvinto  the  hands  of  any  other  people  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.  It  is  necessary  for  the  defence  of  this 
country,  for  the  preservation  of  its  institutions  and  its  power. 
It  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  remain  with  perfect  certainty, 
and  possibly  not  for  a  long  time,  in  the  possession  of  Russia. 
It  is  likely  to  be  conceded  and  transferred  to  some  other  power, 
and  it  is  indispensable  to  us  that  in  such  an  event  it  should  in 
the  nature  of  things  be  transferred  to  the  United  States.  It  is 
H\e  hundred  and  seventy-four  thousand  square  miles  in  extent, 
three  hundred  and  ninety-four  thousand  miles  on  land  and  one 
hundred  and  twenty-six  thousand  on  the  sea,  making  in  land  and 
water  jurisdiction  between  five  and  six  hundred  thousand  square 
miles.  It  commands  a  most  important  portion  of  this  continent 
which  we  cannot  afford  to  leave  to  the  control  of  other  nations. 
The  peninsula  of  Alaska,  from  the  central  part,  extends  into 
Behring's  sea.  It  is  continued  by  a  succession  of  islands — one 
hundred  or  more — which  carries  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  into  Behring's  sea  within  five  or  six  hundred  miles  of  the 
Asiatic  coast,  and  thus  offers  to  the  American  people  a  terri- 
torial connection  and  a  political  jurisdiction  which  bring  us  to 
such  a  point  that  the  citizens  of  this  country  can  pass  in  an  open 
boat,  not  being  at  any  one  time  more  than  two  days  at  sea,  from 
the  American  coast  on  the  Pacific  to  the  Asiatic  countries  on  the 
same  ocean. 

It  is  said  that  this  territory  is  worthless,  that  we  do  not  want 
it,  that  the  Government  had  no  right  to  buy  it.  These  are  ob- 
jections that  have  been  urged  at  every  step  in  the  progress  of 
this  country  from  the  day  when  the  forefathers  from  England 
landed  in  Virginia  or  in  Massachusetts  up  to  this  hour.  When- 
ever and  wherever  we  have  extended  our  possessions  we  have  en- 
countered these  identical  objections — the  country  is  worthless, 
we  do  not  want  it — the  Government  has  no  right  to  buy  it. 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  399 

Here  the  speaker  reviewed  the  objections  urged 
against  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  Texas,  and  Cali- 
fornia. 

It  was  said  at  a  later  day  in  the  Senate  that  the  valley  of 
the  Columbia  river  was  useless  to  us,  costing  more  every  year 
for  its  government  than  its  entire  value.  "We  are  going  to 
war,"  it  was  said,  "for  the  navigation  of  an  unnavigable  river. " 

Upon  representations  like  these  we  surrendered  British  Co- 
lumbia to  Great  Britain.  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  said  in  this 
House  that  she  had  no  title  to  it  whatever.  We  acquired  it  by 
the  treaty  of  Ghent,  then  unsettled  our  title  by  joint  occupation, 
and  finally  gave  it  up  altogether  upon  the  pretext  now  urged  in 
regard  to  Russian  America,  that  it  was  worth  nothing,  costing 
more  than  its  value  every  year  to  govern  it. 

It  is  but  a  few  years  since  the  whole  world  regarded  the 
country  between  the  hundredth  meridian  of  longitude  and  the 
Oregon  cascade  as  barren  and  worthless.  It  was  compared  by 
the  officers  of  the  Government  in  1863  to  the  Asiatic  deserts. 
This  country  is  now  organized  into  prosperous  States  and  Terri- 
tories, and  in  1870  will  contain  more  than  six  hundred  thousand 
people ;  and  one  of  the  States  of  this  region  has  given  us  in  five 
years  an  industrial  product  of  more  than  fifty  million  dollars. 

The  Hudson  Bay  Company's  possessions  in  British  America 
were  constantly  described  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  "sterile, 
ice-bound,  unfit  for  the  support  of  human  beings."  It  is  now 
called  ' '  the  fertile  belt, '  *  which,  through  the  medium  of  coloniza- 
tion and  a  Pacific  railway,  is  to  bind  together  the  British  Ameri- 
can colonies,  and  preserve  to  the  mother  country  her  waning 
power  on  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans.  During  the  present 
month  it  was  declared  in  the  House  of  Commons  that  "The 
British  possessions  on  the  Pacific  united  to  the  colonies  east  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains  would  make  the  finest  dominion  in  the 
world." 

Now,  sir,  I  propose  for  a  few  moments  to  consider  what  ad- 
vantages Alaska  possesses  for  the  United  States.  Is  it  worth- 
"  less  ?  Do  we  need  it  ?  Has  the  Government  the  right  to  buy  it  ? 
And,  first,  I  speak  of  its  geographical,  commercial,  and  political 
importance.  No  man  who  looks  upon  the  political  condition  of 
Europe  can  fail  to  see  that  it  is  quite  possible  it  may  be  thrown 
at  a  day  not  distant  into  the  vortex  of  a  terrible  war.  There 
are  to  be  great  changes  in  the  future ;  and  it  is  certain  that  Rus- 
sia will  be  among  the  first  and  the  greatest  of  the  powers  of 
that  future,  whatever  it  may  be.  Whoever  is  engaged  against 
her  will  strike  for  the  conquest  of  this  territory  on  the  Pacific 


400  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

which  did  belong  to  her,  and  which  will  still  belong  to  her  if 
we  refuse  to  execute  the  treaty  for  its  purchase.  This  is  not  mere 
supposition.v  During  the  Crimean  war  the  French  and  English 
squadrons  in  the  Chinese  sea  secretly  departed  in  1853  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  possession  of  the  Russian  possessions  in 
America.  The  Russian  admiral,  Futzujelm,  illy  prepared  as  he 
was  for  their  attack,  encountered  them  successfully  and  they 
were  defeated. 

The  British  Colonist,  published  in  Vancouver,  speaking  in 
view  of  these  events  and  on  this  subject,  declared  in  1853  that 
the  Russian  possessions  must  be  English  possessions.  The  Cana- 
dians at  the  same  time  echoed  the  same  sentiment.  Mr.  Roebuck 
said  in  the  House  of  Commons  ten  years  ago  that  it  was  "the 
destiny  of  England  to  establish  British  colonies  in  India,  Africa, 
and  the  whole  of  North  America.' '  And  it  is  at  least  probable, 
if  not  certain,  that  if  in  the  war  in  which  we  were  recently  en- 
gaged there  had  been  a  failure  of  our  Government  promptly  to 
maintain  its  power  and  position,  Russian  America  might  in  the 
end  have  gone  to  England,  Mexico  to  France,  and  the  Pacific 
coast  would  have  been  divided  between  them. 

Now,  sir,  what  is  this  territory  ?  It  begins  at  the  parallel  of 
54°  40',  running  north  to  the  seventy-second  parallel  north  lati- 
tude. The  territory  has  about  the  same  extent  in  width.  The 
southern  portion,  commencing  at  latitude  54°  40',  the  northern 
boundary  of  British  Columbia,  is  the  first  feature  of  importance. 
It  is  a  strip  about  three  hundred  miles  in  length  and  thirty  miles 
wide,  fronting  upon  British  Columbia,  and  excluding  it  to  this 
extent  from  the  ocean.  Governor  Simpson  said  in  reference  to 
this  strip  of  Russian  America,  which  had  been  leased  by  the 
Hudson  Bay  Company  from  the  Russian  Government,  that  with- 
out it  the  British  possessions  on  the  Pacific  would  be  compara- 
tively worthless.  -  It  was  leased  upon  that  view  by  the  Russian 
Government  out  of  regard  for  the  English  interest  on  that  coast. 
This  reduces  the  ocean  frontage  of  the  English  on  the  Pacific 
coast  to  the  possession  of  Vancouver's  Island,  and  a  small  strip 
of  coast  further  north,  which,  however,  without  Vancouver's 
Island,  would  be  of  comparatively  little  or  no  value  to  them. 

In  the  controversy  upon  the  Oregon  question  it  was  the  wish 
of  a  portion  of  our  people,  regarding  it  as  a  possession  of  small 
importance,  to  surrender  altogether  that  territory;  and  in  the 
final  settlement,  to  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  Govern- 
ment gave  up  six  degrees  of  latitude  to  England  without  any 
consideration  whatever,  and  with  it  Vancouver's  Island,  which 
was  as  clearly  ours  as  any  territory  we  ever  possessed.    We  sur- 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  401 

rendered  it  to  England  with  the  agreement  that  Vancouver 
should  belong  to  her,  but  that  the  island  of  San  Juan,  between 
Vancouver  and  the  continent,  should  be  a  part  of  the  American 
possessions.  The  language  of  the  treaty  was  that  the  boundary- 
should  be  the  strait  which  ■ '  separates  Vancouver  from  the  conti- 
nent.' '  But  since  that  time  England  has  interpreted  the  treaty 
to  mean  a  strait  which  "separates  the  continent  from  Van- 
couver's Island,"  thus  establishing  a  boundary  which  gives  her 
the  island  of  San  Juan  as  well  as  that  of  Vancouver. 

Thus  the  British  Government  extends  her  claims — and  if  the 
philosophy  for  which  gentlemen  now  contend  here  is  allowed  to 
prevail  she  is  likely  to  be  successful  not  only  in  obtaining  pos- 
session of  San  Juan,  but  of  adjacent  territory,  upon  the  general 
plea  that  it  is  worthless,  that  we  do  not  want  it,  that  it  will 
cost  more  to  govern  it  every  year  than  it  is  worth,  and  that  the 
Government  has  no  right  to  maintain  possession  of  worthless 
territory  held  by  disputed  or  doubtful  titles.  We  agreed  to  a 
joint  occupation  of  this  island  with  England  a  few  years  ago, 
and  having  accomplished  a  joint  occupation  she  is  likely  to  get 
undisputed  and  permanent  possession  without  any  consideration 
whatever  if  the  philosophy  now  urged  upon  us  is  allowed  to 
prevail. 

Transatlantic  communication  between  England  and  the 
Pacific  coast  was  proposed  by  Sir  Edward  Bulwer  Lytton  when 
at  the  head  of  the  colonial  offices  thirty  years  ago,  as  necessary 
to  preserve  that  coast  to  Great  Britain.  And,  sir,  within  this 
month,  on  the  9th  of  June,  there  occurred  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons an  elaborate  discussion  of  this  subject.  Lord  Milton,  who 
has,  perhaps,  written  the  best  work  on  the  British  colonial  policy 
on  this  continent,  declared  that  "the  time  had  arrived  when  it 
was  necessary  for  the  English  Government  to  consider  whether 
it  wished  to  keep  the  Pacific  colonies  in  their  present  state  of 
loyalty;  and  that  if  anything  was  to  be  done  to  establish  a 
through  communication  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  they 
must  look  to  the  Pacific  colonies  rather  than  to  the  Atlantic; 
for  the  British  Pacific  colonies,' '  he  said,  "derived  even  their 
food  from  the  United  States.  There  was  every  year  a  great  in- 
flux of  Americans  into  the  colonies,  and  there  was  a  growing 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  colonists  to  join  the  United  States. ' ' 

And  this  is  while  Alaska  is  in  the  possession  and  under  the 
control  of  the  Russian  Government,  the  Russian  American  Fur 
Company,  and  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  and  before  it  has 
gained  any  strength  from  its  transfer  to  the  American  Govern- 
ment.   Napoleon,  at  the  seige  of  Toulon,  pointed  out  the  place 


402  GREAT   AMERICAN    DEBATES 

to  the  members  of  the  constituent  assembly,  and  he  said  to  them, 
" there  is  Toulon."  When  we  speak  of  Alaska  in  view  of  such 
declarations  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  those  I  have  quoted  in 
regard  to  the  loyalty  of  the  British  colonies  on  the  Pacific,  we 
may  very  well  point  the  House  to  the  territory  between  the 
forty-ninth  and  fifty-fourth  parallels  north,  and  say  "  there  is 
Alaska!"  The  silent  and  irresistible  influence  of  the  American 
people  will  control  the  Pacific  coast  from  the  southern  limit  of 
California  to  Point  Barrow  on  the  Arctic  Ocean. 

A  colony  thrust  in  upon  us  on  the  Pacific  by  an  arrangement 
unjust  to  this  country,  affecting  its  society  and  never  satisfac- 
tory to  its  people,  and  which  cannot  long  exist,  a  colony  which 
is  restrained  from  coming  to  us  by  the  active  intervention  of  the 
parent  government,  and  is  maintained  upon  considerations  of 
foreign  interest  waiting  for  a  moment  when  hostile  demonstra- 
tions may  be  within  its  power,  such  a  colony  has  not  a  natural 
existence,  and  can  claim  of  us  no  consideration  or  support.  It 
is  not  within  the  rule  of  international  comity  to  insist  upon 
maintaining  and  perpetuating  its  power  by  exterior  aid  where 
it  has  no  self-supporting  capacity,  which  alone  gives  govern- 
ments a  just  claim  to  the  respect  of  the  nations  of  the  world. 

Well,  sir,  let  me  speak  now  of  the  advance  of  our  power 
upon  this  continent,  and  what  is  likely  to  be  its  effect.  The 
government  of  the  world  changes  once  or  twice  every  century, 
and  the  theater  of  human  history  is  transferred  to  different 
parts  of  the  globe  in  the  course  of  one  or  two  centuries.  A 
change  of  this  character  is  now  dawning  upon  us.  Hitherto  the 
Atlantic  ocean  has  been  the  theater  of  its  power  and  its  tri- 
umphs. The  control  of  the  world  hitherto  has  been  in  European 
hands,  because  Europe  was  the  sovereigruof -4his_great  sea.  So 
long  as  the  Atlantic  ocean  controls  the  destinies  of  men,  so  long 
the  destiny  and  the  idea  of  that  control  will  be  European,  and 
so  long  as  it  is  European  it  will  stand  in  the  way  of  the  progress 
of  civilization  and  bar  the  movements  of  the  people  to  the  ac- 
quisition or  the  resumption  of  the  power  that  by  the  laws  of 
nature  belongs  to  them.  How  can  it  be  changed  ?  By  interven- 
tion, by  war?  No,  sir.  The  providence  of  God  arranges  other 
means  for  the  control  of  the  great  families  of  men  than  such 
methods  of  violence.  The  changes  in  the  theater  of  operation 
point  out  new  fields,  new  pastures,  green  and  beautiful,  to  which 
the  children  of  creation  may  go.  They  come  from  the  Atlantic, 
and  they  take  their  position  upon  what  is  called  the  great  ocean 
of  the  world — the  PacificJDcean.  That,  with  the  Indian  Ocean, 
which  is  part  of  the  Pacific,  so  spoken  of  by  geographers,  covers 


THE  PURCHASE  OF  ALASKA       403 

one  hundred  million  square  miles,  and  rolls  between  six  hundred 
million  people  (Asiatics)  on  one  side,  and  about  three  hundred 
million  (Americans  and  Europeans)  on  the  other.  That  ocean 
will  be  the  theater  of  the  triumphs  of  civilization  in  the  future. 
It  is  on  that  line  that  are  to  be  fought  the  great  battles  of  the 
hereafter.  It  is  there  that  the  institutions  of  this  world  will 
be  fashioned  and  its  destinies  decided.  If  this  transfer  is  suc- 
cessful it  will  no  longer  be  an  European  civilization  or  an  Euro- 
pean destiny  that  controls  us.  It  will  be  a  Jjigher  civilization 
and  a  nobler  destiny.  It  may  be  an  American  civilization,  an 
American  destiny  of  six  hundred  million  souls.  Across  that 
great  ocean  of  the  future  there  is  not  one  that  is  not  a  friend  of 
this  country,  nor  a  government  that  is  not  willing  to  strike 
hands  with  us  in  any  just  movement  for  any  just  purpose. 
Russia,  China,  Japan,  India — so  far  as  she  is  left  to  herself — 
even  Turkey,  the  whole  of  these  powers  have  been  and  are  and 
still  may  be,  even  to  the  end,  friendly  to  us.  As  for  ourselves 
we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  Europe.  In  this  future  and  in 
the  presence  of  these  powers  Europe  loses,  as  every  nation  in 
time  loses,  her  prestige  and  becomes  subordinate  to  the  new 
powers  in  the  progress  of  human  civilization  and  the  destiny  of 
nations. 

Now,  sir,  the  possession  of  Alaska  is  the  key  of  this  ocean. 
It  brings  this  continent  within  seventy  or  eighty  miles  of  the 
Asiatic  coast  on  the  north.  It  gives  us  the  control  of  the  Arctic, 
whatever  it  may  be,  and  of  that  Arctic  Ocean  we  yet  know  noth- 
ing. This  Arctic  Ocean,  too,  has  a  future,  it  may  be  a  boundless 
and  glorious  future,  and  it  is  for  us.  The  possession  of  Alaska 
makes  Behring  sea  substantially  an  American  sea.  It  throws  out 
from  its  peninsula  the  mysterious  chain  of  Aleutian  Islands 
almost  to  the  Asiatic  coast.  Our  watermen  can  communicate 
with  an  open  boat  by  this  strange  chain  of  islands  between 
America  and  Asia,  between  the  continents  of  the  New  and  the 
Old  World,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  chain  of  Kurile  Islands,  reach 
by  the  same  boat  China,  Japan,  or  India,  never  being  more  than 
two  or  three  days  at  sea,  rarely  or  never  out  of  sight  of  land, 
and  exposed  to  as  slight  perils  of  the  sea  as  mariners  can  ever 
expect  to  encounter.  We  can  thus  return,  according  to  Cheva- 
lier, the  visits  which  hundreds  of  years  since  the  Asiatic  people 
made  to  America  by  the  same  chains  of  Aleutian  and  Kurile 
Islands,  who  first  settled  Alaska,  California,  Mexico,  and  Central 
America,  and  gave  to  this  continent  its  first  faint  impress  of  the 
coming  civilization,  traces  of  which  are  still  seen  on  the  coast 
and  in  the  interior,  in  the  language  and  in  the  customs  of  the 


404  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

people,  from  the  Arctic  Ocean  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  But  our 
visits  will  he  for  a  different  purpose,  with  nobler  results.  They 
returned  nothing  to  the  distant  lands  from  which  they  came.  In 
our  return  visit  we  take  to  the  other  continent  civilization,  laws, 
progress,  and  the  ideas  of  justice  between  man  and  man  in  the 
government  of  nations.  Before  we  have  time  to  go,  they 
come  to  us.  A  tale  of  the  Arabian  nights  has  nothing  so 
marvelous  as  the  recent  movement  of  the  Chinese  nation. 
Abandoning,  of  their  own  motion,  the  policy  of  isolation,  plac- 
ing themselves  first  in  the  great  movements  of  modern  nations, 
they  come  first  to  us  because  we  are  territorially  nearest  and 
most  ready  to  receive  them.  They  take  as  their  representative, 
one  of  our  own  citizens,  perhaps  least  likely  to  have  been  se- 
lected in  advance  for  such  a  mission,  who  has  by  great  good 
sense,  as  well  as  great  good  fortune,  impressed  upon  them  his 
spirit,  and  to  whom  they  have  confided  their  hopes  and  their 
power.  There  is  nothing  left  that  is  impossible.  Hereafter  our 
civilization  may  be  theirs.  It  is  based  upon  the  same  idea.  The 
civilization  of  Europe  rests  upon  education  of  masters,  the 
ignorance  of  the  masses.  The  civilization  of  America  of  the 
present  age  and  of  the  future  rests  upon  universal  education  and 
intelligence.  In  China  every  person  of  mature  age  can  read 
and  write.  Intelligence  is  at  the  basis  of  their  government  and 
the  source  of  their  power.  It  is  the  foundation  upon  which  they 
construct  their  classes  of  society  and  their  orders  in  government. 
And  however  their  institutions  of  the  family  or  the  state  may 
differ  from  ours,  where  intelligence  is  the  common  bond  .of  union 
and  the  representative  of  the  common  power,  as  it  is  with  us 
and  with  them,  we  shall  be  led  gently  but  surely  to  the  same 
objects  and  the  same  end.  And  they  come  to  us  at  the  moment 
when  by  a  strange  coincidence  we  push  our  territorial  jurisdic- 
tion toward  them.  Both  were  animated  by  the  same  spirit  and 
without  the  knowledge  of  each  other  moving  to  the  same  end  by 
different  means. 

Now,  through  the  advent  of  this  spirit  and  power  by  the 
possession  of  Alaska  on  the  north,  with  the  Aleutian  Islands  in 
the  center,  and  amicable  arrangements  not  for  possession — be- 
cause we  do  not  press  upon  others,  and  certainly  not  upon  feeble 
nations  to  deprive  them  of  their  property — but  with  amicable 
relations  of  commerce  and  trade  with  the  government  of  the 
;  Sandwich  Islands,  which  cannot  be  long  postponed,  we  have  in 
lour  grasp  the  control  of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  may  make  this 
lgreat  theater  of  action  for  the  future  whatever  we  may  choose 
\t  shall  be.    But  it  is  indispensable  that  we  shall  possess  these 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  405 

islands,  this  intermediate  communication  between  the  two  conti- 
nents, this  drawbridge  between  America  and  Asia,  these  step- 
ping-stones across  the  Pacific  Ocean.  If  we  give  them  to  another 
government,  if  we  subject  the  Pacific  Ocean  to  the  control  of 
Europe  and  European  civilization,  the  power  of  the  future  is 
theirs  and  not  ours,  and  its  progress  is  after  their  spirit  and 
idea  and  not  ours.  Instead  of  giving  new  light  and  leading  to 
new  thought  other  nations,  we  lose  our  own,  and  are  followers 
rather  than  guides. 

General  Banks  then  spoke  of  the  military  importance 
of  the  acquisition. 

I  pass  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  character  and  resources 
of  the  territory  itself. 

I  received  only  a  day  or  two  since  a  letter  from  Mark  White- 
man,  a  native  of  Russian  Poland,  who  has  been  in  this  country 
twenty-one  years,  who  served  the  United  States  in  the  survey  of 
New  Mexico,  who  went  to  California  in  pursuit  of  gold,  thence 
to  Australia,  thence  to  Fraser's  river,  and  then  with  his  com- 
panions from  the  sources  of  the  Stikine  in  a  direct  line  north, 
working  his  way  through  the  whole  of  Alaska.  He  says  that 
we  know  nothing  of  the  great  importance  of  these  new  posses- 
sions ;  that  in  every  direction  it  is  rich  in  minerals,  and  that  the 
natives  are  peaceful  and  friendly. 

But  I  do  not  desire  to  put  my  statement  solely  upon  human 
testimony.  There  are  laws  of  nature,  results  of  national  experi- 
ence running  through  many  centuries,  to  which  we  refer  for  the 
support  of  our  conclusions.  Since  the  sixteenth  century,  until 
a  very  recent  period,  it  has  been  the  belief  of  everybody  that  the 
precious  metals  were  confined  to  the  tropics.  It  was  not  till 
California  was  acquired  and  gold  discovered  that  this  opinion 
ceased  to  have  control  of  the  public  mind. 

Moving  from  the  tropics  northward  we  found  gold  in  Cali- 
fornia, even  up  to  the  very  boundary  of  British  Columbia.  It 
was  then  discovered  still  further  northward,  at  the  sources  of 
the  Stikine,  and  the  miners  are  still  following  it  further  north- 
ward. It  was  this  law  of  nature  so  recently  discovered  that  led 
Mark  Whiteman  and  his  associates  from  the  sources  of  the 
Stikine  river,  through  Alaska,  to  the  Arctic  Ocean,  and  that 
exhibited  to  them  up  to  the  ocean  itself  its  limitless  mineral 
wealth. 

We  have  from  everybody  in  Alaska — from  miners,  from 
correspondents,  from  sea-faring  men,  from  lumber-men,  from 


406  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

explorers,  from  natives,  from  Russians  connected  with  the  gov- 
ernment there,  and  from  Americans — confirmation  of  these  de- 
I  posits  they  found  there.  It  was  exactly  the  same  evidences  of 
]/  the  existence  of  these  mineral  deposits  that  were  seen  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  ago  in  California,  and  later  still  in  British  Co- 
lumbia. 

Cadwalader  C.  Washburn  [Wis.]. — If  the  gentleman  has 
any  authority  to  show  that  there  are  precious  metals  of  any  kind 
in  Alaska  I  beg  he  will  refer  me  to  the  document  and  page  where 
I  can  find  it. 

Gen.  Banks. — There  is  no  authority  which  will  convince  the 
gentleman  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  Washburn].  If  he  could  lay 
his  hand  on  the  print  in  the  side  he  would  not  believe. 

Mark  Whiteman  found  the  precious  metals  himself,  and 
brought  them  away  with  him;  among  others,  platina  in  large 
quantities,  the  nature  and  value  of  which  he  did  not  understand 
until  the  specimens  which  he  brought  home  were  analyzed  in 
California. 

Many  beds  of  bituminous  coal  have  been  discovered  on  the 
coast  and  in  the  Aleutian  Islands.  The  Russian  steamers  have 
long  taken  coal  from  the  mines  of  Kodiak,  which  can  furnish  it 
for  future  commerce  for  many  years  yet. 

We  have  received  within  a  few  days  a  carefully  prepared 
and  elaborate  statement  of  Professor  Davidson,  whose  opinions 
cannot  be  discredited,  who  says  that  in  this  territory  is  to  be 
found  the  purest  and  the  best  coal  upon  the  Pacific  coast. 

Pure  copper  is  found  in  large  cubic  masses.  Copper  plates, 
hammered  out  by  the  natives,  and  with  hieroglyphics  engraved 
upon  them,  the  history  of  their  tribes  and  families,  have  been 
found.  Silver  is  also  found  in  many  places;  also  quartz,  with 
sulphate  of  iron  and  lead. 

There  is  no  doubt  whatever  about  the  existence  of  large 
quantities  of  gold  on  the  Stikine  river,  and  also  on  other  streams 
washing  down  from  the  mountains  which  extend  through  the 
whole  of  this  territory. 

George  F.  Miller  [Pa.] . — I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  to  explain  what  quantity  of  the  land  embraced  in 
this  purchase  is  susceptible  of  cultivation. 

Gen.  Banks. — The  territory  between  the  forty-fifth  and 
sixtieth  parallels  of  north  latitude,  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
on  the  Pacific  coast,  embraces  three  hundred  thousand  square 
miles  of  cultivable,  arable  land,  according  to  the  statement  of 
the  land  commissioner,  based  upon  the  authority  of  Mr.  Blodgett, 
the  climatologist,  a  gentleman  of  Pennsylvania,  whose  character 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  407 

is  perfectly  well  known  and  highly  appreciated  in  this  country. 
There  are  three  hundred  thousand  square  miles  of  cultivable 
and  arable  land  between  the  forty-fifth  and  sixtieth  parallels, 
the  greater  portion  of  which  is  in  Russian  America — that  part 
between  the  forty-fifth  and  fifty-fourth  degrees  above  Van- 
couver 's  Island  to  the  Russian  possessions,  west  of  the  mountains, 
being  narrow  and  unimportant — according  to  Mr.  Blodgett's 
statement.  The  Commissioner  of  Public  Lands  says  there  are 
twelve  million  eight  hundred  thousand  acres — twenty  thousand 
square  miles — of  land  which  can  be  brought  into  cultivation  by 
actual  settlers  under  the  present  land  system  of  the  United 
States. 

The  correspondents  of  the  Alt  a  Calif  ornian  and  Journal  say 
there  are  twenty  thousand  square  miles  of  cultivable  and  arable 
lands  in  the  vicinity  of  Cook's  inlet,  which  they  call  the  garden 
of  Alaska.  There  is  more  arable  land  in  Alaska,  according  to 
the  official  statement  of  the  land  office,  than  there  was  estimated 
to  be  in  California  when  we  purchased  that  country  from 
Mexico. 

The  testimony  of  newspaper  correspondents  and  of  our  own 
officers  and  scientific  men  shows  that  in  many  portions  of  this 
territory  herds-grass,  of  excellent  quality,  grows  wild  without 
care  or  culture;  white  and  burr  clover  are  found  there;  cattle 
are  fat,  and  beef  tender  and  delicate;  oats  and  barley  thrive 
like  native  grasses ;  peas  grow  at  Oonalaska  in  latitude  64° ;  tur- 
nips, potatoes,  carrots,  beets,  cabbages,  and  other  root  crops  are 
the  main  support  of  the  people.  Winter  gooseberries,  black- 
berries, cranberries,  raspberries,  huckleberries,  and  thimbleber- 
ries  are  abundant.  The  rose,  poppy,  marigold,  astrea,  and  holly- 
hock grow  in  perfection  in  the  gardens  of  the  officers  at  Sitka. 
Plants  are  found  in  the  Arctic  regions  which  belong  to  a  temper- 
ate climate.  Poisonous  plants  are  few  and  not  virulent,  and 
reptiles,  toads,  and  lizards  are  never  seen. 

This  is  the  character  of  the  country  in  its  agricultural  as- 
pect. It  is  covered  with  gigantic  pine  forests,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  strip  of  land  upon  the  northern  coast  opposite  Behring 
Strait.    Trees  measure  between  three  and  six  feet. 

The  timber  of  Alaska  consists  of  white  fir,  spruce  fir,  white 
and  yellow  pine,  cedar  and  hemlock,  alder,  some  oak,  and  a  few 
other  species  of  timber  of  which  we  know  little.  The  Alaska 
cedar  for  ship-building  is  the  best  in  the  world.  An  imperial 
commission  of  the  French  Government  sitting  at  Toulon  in  1860 
reported  that  masts  and  spars  from  Vancouver's  Island  are 
superior  to  those  from  Riga.     The  timber  of  Alaska  is  of  the 


\ 


408  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

same  quality  as  that  of  Vancouver's  Island.  The  hemlock  will, 
be  used  for  tanning  hides,  which  are  abundant  in  Siberia,  and 
the  alder  is  extensively  used  in  curing  fish. 

Gentlemen  tell  us,  although  this  timber  may  exist  in  quanti- 
ties and  of  the  excellent  character  described,  it  is  of  no  use, 
because  we  have  enough  elsewhere.  They  forget  that  the  world 
changes.  Everywhere  we  see  evidences  that  this  continent  is 
being  rapidly  stripped  of  its  forests,  which  once  covered  it  as 
they  now  cover  Alaska. 

At  any  rate,  we  cannot  have  too  much  timber.  What  is  the 
market  for  the  timber  of  the  Pacific  coast?  It  is,  in  the  first 
place,  Russia,  China,  Japan,  India,  Australia,  California, 
Mexico,  South  America,  all  the  countries  that  line  the  coasts  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean.  We  send  it  also  to  the  Atlantic  side  of  South 
America,  and  even  into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  on  that  side.  The 
unsurpassed  masts  and  spars  of  the  Pacific  coast  are  sent  to 
every  port  in  every  part  of  the  world.  Who  is  here  to  say  that 
we  have  too  much  of  this  property,  or  that  it  is  a  crime  to  in- 
crease our  supply? 

Let  me  come  now  to  the  matter  of  the  fisheries.  When  the 
committee  were  considering  the  matter  of  the  fisheries,  a  state- 
ment from  the  officers  of  the  Coast  Survey  relating  to  the  quan- 
tity of  fish  found  in  these  bays  and  rivers  was  presented,  and 
it  was  so  extravagant  that  gentlemen  of  the  committee  thought 
it  would  be  better  to  omit  it  in  the  report. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  in  no  part  of  the  world,  except  on  a 
small  scale  in  the  fiords  of  Norway,  anything  like  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  bays  and  rivers  and  islands  on  the  Alaska  coast. 
Here  is  an  ocean  covering  a  hundred  million  square  miles  that 
has  never  been  fished  so  far  as  we  know.  When  we  consider  the 
vast  multitude  of  fish  that  the  Pacific  Ocean  must  contain  we 
can  very  well  believe  that  when  storms  drive  them  into  these  bays 
they  are  as  numerous  as  they  are  represented  to  be.  It  is  not  a 
matter  of  fancy,  but  a  matter  of  fact.  The  Indians  from  all 
portions  of  Alaska  go  down  to  the  coast  when,  from  indications 
which  they  get  from  the  flight  of  birds,  whose  flocks  darken  the 
heavens,  that  the  fish  are  coming  in  schools  upon  the  coast,  and 
lay  in  their  supply  for  the  year.  These  waters  abound  in  whale, 
cod,  halibut,  salmon,  and  all  the  varieties  of  fish  that  inhabit 
the  cold  waters.  The  whale  has  abandoned  the  seas  of  the 
northeast  coast  and  is  pursued  to  seas  adjacent  to  Alaska,  twenty 
thousand  miles  from  whence  he  is  followed  into  the  Arctic 
Ocean.  The  superintendent  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  informs 
me  that  there  are  sixty  thousand  men  engaged  every  year  in 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  409 

the  fisheries  of  the  northwestern  coast  of  North  America.  Now, 
here  are  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  square  miles  of  fishing 
grounds,  which  will  give  occupation  to  at  least  one  hundred  and 
twenty  thousand  men  in  the  cod  and  halibut  fisheries  alone.  The 
fisheries  of  the  United  States  return  every  year  a  product  of 
$34,000,000,  four-fifths  of  which  is  from  the  whale  and  cod 
fishing.  Of  that  we  obtain  our  share  now  from  the  eighty-four 
thousand  square  miles  of  the  fisheries  of  the  northeast  coast  of 
America,  snaring  its  wealth  with  England  and  France,  who 
have  by  far  the  best  opportunities,  to  whose  fishing  grounds  we 
are  admitted  only  upon  the  payment  of  onerous  tonnage  taxes. 
By  this  purchase  we  treble  the  extent  of  the  fisheries  of  which 
we  have  exclusive  possession,  and  of  course  we  obtain  a  cor- 
responding increase  of  employment  and  product. 

I  come  now  to  a  question  of  practical  importance.  What  is 
the  value  of  these  things  to  us?  They  add  to  the  industrial 
product  of  the  country,  from  native  industries  alone,  employ- 
ment for  fishermen,  lumbermen,  miners,  colliers,  mariners,  ship- 
builders, trappers,  hunters,  farmers,  ice-cutters,  and  traders. 
From  the  native  industries  of  this  possession,  carrying  nothing 
there  but  men,  we  will  find,  when  the  resources  of  the  territory 
are  fully  developed,  employment  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  persons.  A  quarter  of  a  million  of  people  will  be  en- 
gaged in  peaceful,  honorable,  profitable,  national,  native  indus- 
tries in  this  territory  alone.  And,  allowing  each  man  to  repre- 
sent a  family  of  four  persons,  it  will  furnish  a  support  for  a 
population  of  a  million  souls. 

Who  is  interested  in  this  purchase?  The  Pacific  States. 
Will  you  say  to  them  that  it  is  worthless ;  that  we  do  not  want 
it;  that  the  Government  has  no  right  to  acquire  it?  They 
know  better.  They  know  that  the  possession  of  this  territory  is 
hereafter  identified  with  the  prosperity  of  this  Government  and 
the  development  and  increase  of  our  industry.  California 
proved  herself  a  fast  and  important  friend  of  this  Government 
in  our  hour  of  trial.  She  gave  the  whole  Pacific  coast  to  the 
cause  of  liberty  and  union,  and  to  us,  through  the  Providence 
of  God,  the  victory.  She  asks  now  the  extension  of  our  inter- 
ests on  the  Pacific  coast.  With  what  grace  can  the  East  deny 
her  request?  With  what  justice  can  the  Mississippi  valley, 
that  was  acquired  by  a  similar  treaty,  deny  to  California  a 
favor  which,  while  it  strengthens  her  interests,  enlarges,  con- 
solidates, and  extends  those  of  the  whole  country? 

At  every  step  from  1780  up  to  this  hour  Russia  has  been 
our  friend.    In  the  darkest  hour  of  our  peril,  when  France 


410  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

and  England  were  contemplating  the  recognition  of  the  rebel 
confederacy,  the  whole  world  was  thrilled  by  the  appearance  in 
San  Francisco  of  a  Russian  fleet,  and  nearly  at  the  same  time, 
whether  by  accident  or  design,  a  second  Russian  fleet  appeared 
in  the  harbor  of  New  York.  Who  knew  how  many  more  there 
were  on  the  voyage  here  ?  From  that  hour,  France  on  one  hand 
and  England  on  the  other  receded,  and  the  American  Govern- 
ment regained  its  position  and  power. 

Now,  shall  we  flout  the  Russian  Government  in  every  court 
of  Europe  for  her  friendship?  Having  sought  from  her  for 
twenty-five  years  the  fisheries  of  the  northwest  coast,  and  hav- 
ing received  from  her  not  only  the  incident  of  the  fisheries  but 
the  substance  of  the  territorial  possession  incident  to  the  fish- 
eries, shall  we  do  what  never  before  has  been  done,  refuse  to 
execute  the  treaty  she  has  made  at  our  solicitation  with  our  own 
Government,  upon  the  conditions  and  according  to  the  letter  of 
our  own  Constitution?  I  do  not  believe  it.  Whoever  of  the 
Representatives  of  the  American  people  in  this  House  on  this 
question  turns  his  back  not  only  upon  his  duty,  but  upon  the 
friends  of  his  country,  upon  the  Constitution  of  his  Govern- 
ment, the  honor  of  his  generation,  cannot  long  remain  in  power. 

There  is  one  precedent  we  must  dismiss  from  memory  before 
we  can  do  that.  We  must  erase  from  our  history  the  glorious 
incident  of  Jackson 's  administration,  when  he  compelled  France 
to  pay  under  a  treaty  contracted  with  us,  and  when  France 
answered,  as  we  are  now  urged  to  answer,  that  the  appropria- 
tion of  money  was  another  matter.  Although  she  was  the  best 
friend  we  had,  yet  Jackson  asserted  he  would  compel  the  exe- 
cution of  the  treaty  at  the  hazard  of  war.  Gentlemen  cannot 
make  a  distinction  between  that  case  and  the  one  now  presented. 
If  we  do  refuse  to  appropriate  this  money,  when  we  owe  another 
government  under  treaty  stipulations,  it  will  be  a  greater  dis- 
honor than  our  country  yet  has  known. 

Mr.  Washburn  replied  to  General  Banks  on  the  fol- 
lowing day  (July  1). 

If  gentlemen  will  come  down  from  the  region  of  the  clouds 
to  which  they  were  transported  by  the  honorable  gentleman, 
and  from  those  realms  of  fancy  and  imagination  in  which  he 
reveled,  to  plain  matters  of  every-day  fact,  I  shall  not  despair 
of  doing  something  yet  to  protect  the  rights  of  my  constituents 
and  of  the  people  of  this  country. 

Gentlemen  could  not  fail  to  observe  all  through  the  speech 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  411 

made  by  the  gentleman  on  yesterday  the  extreme  lack  of  authori- 
ties to  sustain  his  statements,  and  the  great  preponderance,  in- 
stead, of  spread-eagle  oratory.  Sir,  I  shall  enter  into  no  con- 
test with  the  gentleman  in  the  eagle  business;  I  resign  that 
to  him  altogether.  But  I  shall  ask  those  members  who  have 
not  arrived  at  the  sublime  position  of  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  who  declared  "that  he  did  not  rely  on  human 
testimony,  that  he  was  above  it" — I  shall  ask  those  gentleman 
who  do  care  for  such  testimony  to  listen  while  I  unfold  the  facts 
that  surround  this  most  extraordinary  case. 

I  shall  attempt  to  demonstrate  five  propositions,  and  if  I 
shall  succeed  in  doing  so  I  think  I  may  claim  the  judgment  of 
this  committee  and  of  the  House.     Those  propositions  are : 

1.  That  at  the  time  this  treaty  was  negotiated  not  a  soul  in 
the  whole  United  States  asked  for  it. 

2.  That  it  was  secretly  negotiated  and  in  a  manner  to  pre- 
vent the  representatives  of  the  people  from  being  heard, 

3.  That  by  existing  treaties  we  possessed  every  right  that  is 
of  any  value  to  us  without  the  responsibility  and  never-ending 
expense  of  governing  a  nation  of  savages. 

4.  That  the  country  is  absolutely  without  value. 

5.  That  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  House  to  inquire  into 
the  treaty,  and  vote  or  not  vote  the  money  according  to  its  best 
judgment. 

My  first  proposition  is  that  on  the  30th  day  of  March,  1867, 
the  day  on  which  this  treaty  was  signed,  there  was  not  a  man 
in  the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  the  United  States  who  had 
ever  conceived  the  idea  that  this  territory  of  Alaska  was  a 
valuable  territory  for  the  United  States  to  possess ;  not  even  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  though  he  now  declares  it  to  be 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  very  safety  and  existence  of  this 
nation.  Even  on  the  Pacific  coast,  which  is  now  said  to  be 
clamorous  for  it,  no  such  idea  had  entered  the  brain  of  any  man 
there. 

As  to  the  gentleman's  point  that  we  are  in  honor  bound  to 
appropriate  money  to  execute  treaties,  I  would  say  that,  al- 
though the  House  has  never  refused  to  appropriate  money  to 
carry  out  treaties,  it  has,  nevertheless,  asserted  its  right  to  do 
so,  and  the  point  has  never  been  yielded ;  and  when  money  has 
been  voted  to  execute  treaties  it  has  always  been  on  the  ground 
that  the  House  approved  them,  and  not  because  it  was  believed 
that  they  were  under  any  obligation  to  do  so. 

On  this  point  I  invite  attention  to  the  opinion  of  Judge 
John  McLean,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.    The 


412  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

case  of  Turner  vs.  American  Baptist  Missionary  Union  (5  Mc- 
Lean, 344)  decides  as  follows: 

"A  treaty  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  only  when  the  treaty-making 
power  can  carry  it  into  effect. 

"A  treaty  which  stipulates  for  the  payment  of  money  undertakes  to 
do  that  which  the  treaty-making  power  cannot  do;  therefore  the  treaty  is 
not  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

"To  give  it  the  effect  the  action  of  Congress  is  necessary.  And  in  this 
action  the  Bepresentatives  and  Senators  act  on  their  own  judgment  and  re- 
sponsibility, and  not  on  the  judgment  and  responsibility  of  the  treaty-mak- 
ing power. 

"A  foreign  government  may  be  presumed  to  Tcnow  the  power  of  appro- 
priating money  belongs  to  Congress. 

"No  act  of  any  part  of  the  Government  can  be  held  to  be  a  law  which 
has  not  all  the  sanctions  to  make  it  law." 

But  it  is  said  that  Russia  has  given  us  possession,  and  for 
that  reason  we  should  vote  the  money.  Quite  otherwise.  Why 
was  possession  taken  by  the  Executive  of  this  Government  and 
yielded  by  Russia  before  the  money  was  paid  or  even  voted? 
No  interest  of  this  Government  was  suffering  for  the  want  of 
immediate  possession,  and  it  is  believed  that  no  benefit  could 
arise  to  this  Government  from  having  possession  before  the  time 
stipulated  for  the  payment  of  the  money.  The  same  may  be 
said  in  regard  to  Russia,  unless  the  country  was  so  worthless 
that  every  day  she  held  possession  was  a  positive  damage  to 
her,  and  for  that  reason  she  was  in  haste  to  be  rid  of  it.  It 
requires  no  great  stretch  of  imagination  to  divine  the  scarcely 
hidden  causes  which  governed  the  parties  negotiating  this  treaty 
in  stipulating  for  immediate  possession.  They  could  hardly 
have  failed  to  foresee  that  this  treaty  would  be  strongly  opposed 
in  this  House,  and  that  upon  its  merits  it  could  have  no  chance 
for  the  necessary  appropriation.  An  extraordinary  pressure 
was  seen  to  be  necessary,  and  that  pressure  was  sought  for  in 
giving  and  taking  possession. 

Will  this  House  allow  itself  to  be  coerced  by  any  such  per- 
formance? To  state  the  question  is  to  answer  it.  But  it  is 
said  that  Russia,  our  best  friend,  will  be  offended  if  we  fail  to 
appropriate  the  money.  I  fully  recognize  the  friendly  char- 
acter of  the  Russian  Government  in  the  past,  and  the  importance 
of  cultivating  friendly  relations  in  the  future;  but,  for  the 
reason  stated,  it  is  denied  that  any  just  ground  of  offence  can 
exist  if  this  House  fails  to  sanction  the  treaty.  It  is  maintained 
that  the  refusal  to  appropriate  money  to  carry  this  treaty  into 
execution  would  be  cause  of  war  on  the  part  of  Russia,  and 
the  action  of  President  Jackson  is  cited,  in  the  case  of  the 
refusal  of  France  to  pay  the  money  stipulated  to  be  paid  in  the 


THE   PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  413 

treaty  of  Paris,  negotiated  in  1831.  But  that  case  is  in  no  sense 
parallel  to  the  one  under  consideration.  There  the  claim  of  this 
Government  existed  long  before  the  treaty  was  negotiated.  The 
treaty  merely  liquidated  the  amount  which  France  was  to  pay. 
Our  right  to  the  money  was  perfect  and  complete  before  the 
treaty  was  made,  and  a  refusal  to  pay  it  was  as  much  a  cause 
of  war  before  the  treaty  as  afterward;  and  had  there  been  no 
treaty  liquidating  the  amount,  the  right  to  demand  payment 
would  still  have  existed,  and,  if  need  be,  to  use  force  to  com- 
pel it. 

Every  intelligent  man  must  see  that  if  we  had  an  existing 
treaty  with  Russia  that  gave  us  the  right  to  trade  on  that 
coast,  the  right  to  fish  on  that  coast,  the  right  to  land  and  cure 
fish  on  the  coast,  and  the  right  to  visit  the  interior  waters  and 
trade  with  the  natives,  we  had  virtually  everything  that  is  desir- 
able, and  that  there  could  be  no  excuse  for  this  treaty.  Neither 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  nor  any  other  gentleman  will 
dispute  that  if  we  could  have  those  privileges  it  would  be  better 
for  us  to  have  them  without  the  responsibility  and  never-ending 
expense  of  ruling  and  governing  a  nation  of  savages.  Now  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  undertakes  to  say  that  we  had  no 
such  treaty  rights.  As  these  things  are  denied,  it  is  made  my 
duty  to  prove  them. 

In  1832  a  treaty  was  negotiated  with  Russia,  the  negotiators 
being  Hon.  James  Buchanan  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
and  Count  Nesselrode  on  the  part  of  Russia.  That  treaty  gave 
us  the  rights  I  have  mentioned,  and  was  of  full  force  and  effect 
at  the  time  of  the  negotiation  of  the  late  treaty  for  the  purchase 
of  Russian  America. 

The  gentleman  says  that  this  treaty  was  abrogated.  I  take 
issue  with  him.  This  treaty  having  been  in  existence  ten  years, 
that  provision  of  it  in  article  four,  which  allowed  our  people  to 
go  inland  into  the  harbors  and  bays  and  rivers  to  trade  with 
the  natives,  was  abrogated,  and  the  reason  assigned  was  that  our 
people  went  there  not  for  the  purpose  of  legitimate  trade,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  selling  whiskey  and  firearms  to  the  Indians ; 
and  that  provision  was  therefore  abrogated  after  a  long  con- 
ference and  correspondence  between  the  State  Department, 
through  Mr.  Forsyth,  and  the  Russian  Government.  Mr.  For- 
syth maintained  always,  and  never  yielded  the  point,  that  under 
the  first  article  of  the  treaty  we  had  the  right  of  landing  on  the 
coast,  but  not  to  visit  the  interior  bays,  and.  that  right  was  not 
and  could  not  be  terminated. 

This  treaty  of  which  I  speak — the  treaty  of  1832 — has  never 


414  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

been  abrogated,  and  never  can  be  abrogated  until  a  certain  no- 
tice has  been  given,  which  never  has  been  yet  given.  It  is  a  good 
and  valid  treaty  to-day;  and  under  that  treaty  we  are  entitled 
to  all  the  rights  which  they  have  granted  to  Great  Britain  or 
to  any  other  country,  including  the  fishing  rights  granted  to 
Great  Britain  in  1859. 

Gentlemen  who  have  looked  into  this  matter  will  have  dis- 
covered that  when  this  treaty  was  first  negotiated  the  propo- 
sition was  to  pay  only  $7,000,000;  that  was  the  original  agree- 
ment. But  Mr.  Seward  insisted  that  it  should  be  free  from  all 
incumbrances;  and  Mr.  Stoeckl  agreed  to  that,  and  then  Mr. 
Seward  said  very  mildly,  without  inquiring  what  those  incum- 
brances were:  "I  will  give  you  a  couple  of  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  gold  in  addition  if  you  will  do  so."  Of  course  Mr. 
Stoeckl  agreed  to  take  the  additional  $200,000  in  coin. 

Now,  I  will  tell  you  what  those  incumbrances  are,  and  which 
are  not  yet  removed,  and  which  cannot  be  removed.  First,  the 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  which  cannot  be  abrogated  for  ten 
years  from  1859,  and  which  gives  them  the  right  to  navigate 
these  rivers  forever. 

General  Banks. — It  is  not  provided  by  that  treaty  that 
Great  Britain  shall  have  the  right  to  navigate  the  rivers  of 
Russian  America  forever.  It  provides  that  in  relation  to  the 
rivers  rising  in  British  Columbia  and  passing  through  this  por- 
tion of  Russian  America  in  front  of  British  Columbia  the  right 
of  navigation  shall  be  secured  to  Great  Britain.  It  is  a  right 
which  covers  the  Stikine  only,  and  it  is  a  right  which  this 
country  has  claimed  from  its  very  foundation;  that  where  a 
river  takes  its  rise  in  one  country  and  passes  through  another 
country  the  people  of  the  country  where  the  river  took  its  rise 
have  the  right  to  follow  the  river  to  its  mouth. 

Mr.  Washburn. — This  provision  does  not  apply  to  the  Sti- 
kine river  only.  Every  river  of  any  importance  in  Alaska  rises 
in  British  America,  and  the  British  people  have  the  right  to 
navigate  those  rivers  forever.  By  that  same  treaty  Sitka  is 
guaranteed  to  Great  Britain  as  a  free  port  for  the  term  of 
ten  years.  It  is  a  free  port  to-day  for  the  Government  of  Great 
Britain.  Does  the  gentleman  deny  it?  Yet  here  he  asks  us  to 
pay  $7,200,000  in  gold  for  this  territory  before  these  incum- 
brances are  removed. 

General  Banks. — The  ten  years  will  have  expired  next 
year. 

Mr.  Washburn. — Very  well;  when  the  incumbrance  is  re-' 
moved  it  will  be  time  enough  to  talk  about  paying  this  money 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  415 

for  it.  And  how  do  you  propose  to  remove  the  incumbrances 
on  the  rivers  which  are  made  free  to  Great  Britain  forever? 
The  sailors,  traders,  and  fishermen  of  Great  Britain  have  the 
right  to-day  to  go  into  all  the  interior  waters  of  Alaska  under 
this  treaty;  just  the  same  right  that  our  people  have.  Great 
Britain  to-day  has  the  same  right  on  the  coast  of  Alaska  that 
we  have,  except  the  miserable  privilege  of  governing  the  fifty, 
sixty,  or  seventy  thousand  wretched  savages  there.  And  yet  the 
gentleman  comes  in  here  and  coolly  asks  us  to  vote  $7,200,000  in 
gold  for  this  territory. 

Now,  sir,  this  treaty  was  negotiated  in  secret.  I  say  it  was 
negotiated  in  such  a  manner  that  the  representatives  of  the 
people  might  not  know  of  it,  as  it  was  justly  feared  they  would 
protest  against  it.  The  negotiation  was  carried  on  here  while 
we  were  in  session  in  March,  1867.  Mr.  Stoeckl,  on  the  25th  of 
March,  1867,  said  to  Mr.  Seward  that  he  would  accept  his 
proposition.  The  trade  was  closed  between  them,  but  they  kept 
it  a  profound  secret  until  our  adjournment.  Why  ?  This  House 
adjourned  on  the  30th  of  March,  1867,  at  twelve  o'clock.  On 
the  same  day  was  signed  this  treaty  in  Washington.  I  believe 
that  signatures  were  withheld  until  after  our  adjournment  that 
no  remonstrance  could  be  heard  from  the  representatives  of  the 
people. 

I  wish  I  had  time  to  answer  every  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  at  length ;  but  I  cannot  follow  him  in 
his  flights  of  fancy.  He  pictured  Alaska  as  the  finest  country 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  He  declared  solemnly  there  was 
no  country  on  the  face  of  God's  earth  which  could  support  as 
many  industries  as  Alaska.  He  said  it  would  support  one  mil- 
lion people  in  more  industries  than  any  other  country.  He 
told  us  it  was  a  magnificent  agricultural  country.  If  gentle- 
men would  like  through  the  eye  to  have  an  idea  of  this  terri- 
tory, of  Alaska,  they  can  look  upon  a  photograph  of  Sitka 
which  I  have  here,  the  most  favorable  place  upon  the  coast. 
[Here  Mr.  Washburn  held  up  a  large  photograph.]  They  have 
established  themselves  on  various  places,  but  had  finally  to  give 
them  up  and  confine  themselves  to  Sitka.  We  have  testimony 
that  there  are  not  a  dozen  acres  of  arable  land  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Sitka,  yet  we  are  told  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  Gen- 
eral Land  Office  that  there  are  twelve  million  acres  of  arable 
land  in  Alaska.  He  has  no  information  of  his  own,  and  yet 
he  undertakes  to  instruct  us  and  make  statements  that  have 
no  foundation  whatever.  He  has  written  a  letter  containing  an 
"infinite  deal  of  nothing."    He  has  no  authority  for  anything 


416  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

he  says.  There  is  not  one  grain  of  wheat  in  this  bushel  of  chaff. 
He  talks  of  deposits  of  gold.  I  defy  any  living  man  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth  to  produce  any  evidence  that  an  ounce  of 
gold  was  ever  extracted  from  the  territory  of  Alaska. 

My  friend  from  Massachusetts  gets  up  here  and  tells  us 
there  are  over  twelve  million  acres  of  arable  land  in  Alaska, 
and  that  it  is  capable  of  sustaining  a  thrifty  and  happy  popula- 
tion of  over  one  million  freemen.  Now,  sir,  without  resorting 
to  that  kind  of  testimony  that  he  has  brought  in,  I  have  official 
documents  from  St.  Petersburg  of  a  date  no  longer  ago  than 
August  last.  Mr.  Seward,  dear  soul,  in  his  simplicity  of  heart, 
wrote  to  Cassius  M.  Clay,  Minister  to  Russia,  to  ascertain  what 
system  of  disposing  of  lands  prevailed  in  Alaska.  Well,  Mr. 
Clay  submitted  that  letter  to  the  Russian  Cabinet,  and  I  think- 
I  see  them  reading  it,  and  they  must  have  had  a  very  jolly  time 
of  it  at  the  expense  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  Here  is  the  an- 
swer they  gave: 

"The  native  population  of  each  separate  island  is  so  insignificant  that 
the  inhabitants  of  any  one  could  not  meet  with  the  slightest  cause  of  col- 
lision of  interest  in  the  use  of  lands;  in  addition  to  this,  the  soil  itself  be- 
ing perfectly  barren  and  unfit  either  for  agricultural  or  grazing  purposes, 
there  was  no  reason  why  the  natives  should  endeavor  to  extend  the  limits  of 
their  lands.' '     ... 

' l  There  was  even  less  ground  for  the  enactment  of  any  particular  regula- 
tions in  view  of  immigrant  settlers.  Who  can  ever  have  a  mind  to  settle 
in  that  country,  where  permanent  fogs  and  dampness  of  atmosphere  and 
want  of  solar  heat  and  light,  leaving  out  of  the  question  anything  like  agri- 
culture, make  it  impossible  to  provide  even  a  sufficient  supply  of  hay  for 
cattle,  and  where  man,  from  want  of  bread,  salt,  and  meat,  to  escape 
scurvy  must  constantly  live  upon  fish,  berries,  shell-fish,  sea-cabbages,  and 
other  products  of  the  sea,  soaking  them  profusely  with  the  grease  of  sea 
beasts.  The  Aleutian  Islands  may  attract  transient  traders,  but  no  perma- 
nent settlers;  to  inhabit  them  one  must  be  an  Aleute;  and,  if  it  were  not 
for  the  sea  surrounding  the  islands,  this  country,  owing  to  its  unfavorable 
climatic  conditions  and  the  sterility  of  its  ground,  would  have  never  been 
inhabited  at  all. ' ' 

This  is  the  paradise  which  we  heard  depicted  in  such  elo- 
quent terms  yesterday,  and  I  was  almost  led  to  believe  that  the 
generally  received  account  we  have  that  the  Garden  of  Eden 
was  on  the  green  banks  of  the  Euphrates  was  a  mistake,  and 
that  the  paradise  of  our  first  parents  was  really  on  ' '  Oonalaska  's 
shore.' '  \ 

But,  sir,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  influences  that  have  been  brought  to  bear  to  induce)  this 
House  to  vote  this  appropriation.  It  dates  back  to  the  time 
when  the  treaty  was  first  negotiated.  I  believe  I  state  nothing 
more  than  the  fact  when  I  say  that  the  Secretary  of  State  did 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  417 

not  act  entirely  upon  his  own  judgment  when  he  bought  this 
territory.  I  believe  the  fact  to  be  that  when  he  conceived  the 
idea  of  purchasing  it  he  telegraphed  to  General  Halleck,  at 
San  Francisco,  to  inquire  of  him  how  much  it  would  do  to  pay 
for  Alaska,  and  General  Halleck  replied  that  it  would  answer 
to  pay  from  five  to  ten  million  dollars.  Mr.  Seward  thought  it 
Would  not  be  quite  right  to  offer  the  smallest  sum;  so  he  split 
the  difference  and  offered  $7,000,000. 

The  treaty  having  been  negotiated,  it  became  necessary  to 
get  it  through  the  Senate  j  and  the  first  piece  of  machinery  is  a 
telegram  from  General  Halleck,  as  follows: 

San  Francisco,  California,  April  4,  1867. 

Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War: 

I  learn  from  a  gentleman  who  has  recently  visited  many  parts  of  Rus- 
sian America  that  its  value  is  greater  than  has  been  supposed.  The  re- 
jection of  the  treaty  will  cause  great  dissatisfaction  on  this  coast,  espe- 
cially in  California. 

H.  W.  Halleck,  Major  General. 

This  dispatch  was  instantly  made  public  here  to  operate  on 
the  Senate.  It  will  be  observed  that  he  says  that  its  rejection 
would  cause  great  dissatisfaction  in  California.  How  could  he 
know  that?  No  man  in  California  or  Washington  not  behind 
the  scenes  knew  that  any  such  scheme  was  on  foot  on  the  4th 
day  of  April,  the  date  of  his  dispatch.  Now,  sir,  there  is  no 
evidence  produced  that  any  desire  for  this  acquisition  existed 
on  the  Pacific  coast,  either  at  the  time  the  treaty  was  negoti- 
ated or  now.  A  leading  Republican  paper  of  California,  one 
of  the  ablest,  if  not  the  ablest,  in  the  State,  the  Sacramento 
Union,  as  late  as  November  last  speaks  of  the  treaty  in  very 
contemptuous  terms,  calls  Alaska  a  terra  incognita,  and  says: 

"That  persons  well  informed  as  to  Alaska  are  ungrateful 
enough  to  hint  that  we  could  have  bought  a  much  superior 
elephant  in  Siam  or  Bombay  for  one  hundredth  part  of  the 
money,  with  not  a  ten  thousandth  part  of  the  expense  incurred 
in  keeping  the  animal  in  proper  condition.' ' 

After  the  treaty  was  negotiated  Captain  Howard,  of  the 
revenue  service,  was  sent  up  to  explore  Alaska.  He  was  told 
to  look  for  fishing  banks,  for  coal,  and  for  precious  metals.  1 
have  his  report  here. 

In  regard  to  minerals,  the  geologist  of  the  expedition,  Mr. 
Blake,  says  that  "exaggerated  ideas  have  been  formed  of  the 
mineral  wealth  of  Alaska. '  *  None  of  these  gentleman  succeeded 
in  finding  mineral  wealth  of  any  kind  there,  although  they  were 
constantly  in  pursuit  of  it. 


418  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

Exaggerated  reports  in  regard  to  this  country  in  reference 
to  its  furs  have  been  circulated.  Mr.  Wilson,  in  his  letter,  says 
that  the  value  of  the  fur  seals  alone  is  over  half  a  million  an- 
nually. 

Now,  I  assert — and  I  have  the  facts  and  figures  to  prove  it — 
that  the  fur  trade  is  becoming  rapidly  exhausted,  and  that  the 
total  value  of  all  the  furs  gathered  in  Alaska  is  considerably 
less  than  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year,  and  is  diminish- 
ing from  year  to  year  with  great  rapidity. 

Mr.  Bulkley,  who  says  that  the  seal  fisheries  alone  could 
be  made  to  pay  for  Alaska,  admits  himself  that  unless  the  seal 
fisheries  are  protected  as  the  Russians  protected  them  they  will 
not  last  any  length  of  time.  And  Professor  Davidson  says  that 
with  the  utmost  care  on  the  part  of  the  Russian  authorities  the 
furs  and  fur-bearing  animals  have  rapidly  diminished  from  year 
to  year.  With  the  transfer  to  this  Government,  and  the  conse- 
quent invasion  of  the  country  by  our  people,  it  can  safely  be 
said  that  the  fur  trade  will  soon  cease  to  exist.  Under  the 
Russian  system  they  only  captured  about  thirty-three  thousand 
seals  a  year,  which,  at  three  dollars  a  piece,  their  highest  value, 
is  $99,000;  and  yet  we  are  told  that  the  seal  trade  will  pay 
for  the  whole  purchase.  Now,  if  under  the  Russian  system  they 
received  less  than  $100,000  a  year  for  the  fur  seals  captured, 
how  long  would  it  take  to  pay  off  this  debt  of  $7,200,000?  It 
is  a  good  deal  like  the  sum  that  used  to  be  in  the  arithmetic 
about  the  frog  at  the  bottom  of  the  well  jumping  up  two  feet 
and  falling  back  three  feet  each  day,  and  about  the  time  that 
the  frog  would  get  to  the  surface  you  would  pay  off  this  debt 
from  the  fur  seal  trade. 

In  regard  to  salmon,  we  read  of  such  immense  numbers  up 
those  streams  that  they  are  driven  up  on  the  shores,  forming 
winrows  three  feet  in  depth,  and  that  they  sell  for  seven  cents  a 
pound  in  gold,  and  we  are  also  informed  that  the  bears  come 
down  from  the  mountains  to  feed  upon  them,  their  dainty 
appetites  selecting  only  the  heads,  rejecting  the  other  parts  of 
the  salmon  altogether.  This  is  told  in  the  report  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  committee,  and  we  are  gravely  asked  to  believe  it, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  stated  substantially 
the  same  in  his  speech,  and  gave  us  the  philosophy  of  it.  Wil- 
son, the  philosopher,  must  look  to  his  laurels. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  doubt  that  there  are  many 
salmon  in  the  rivers  of  Alaska.  That  is  also  the  case  in  regard 
to  the  rivers  of  Washington  Territory  and  Oregon.  Inexhaust- 
ible numbers  of  salmon  annually  visit  the  rivers,  sounds,  and 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  419 

bays  of  our  western  coast,  and  we  have  now  no  occasion,  and 
will  have  no  occasion  for  a  hundred  years  to  come,  to  visit  the 
rivers  of  Alaska  for  salmon. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  also  quotes  the  testimony 
of  Captain  Bryant,  who  says  that  Behring  Sea  is  an  immense 
reservoir  for  codfish.  Yet  Colonel  Bulkley,  of  the  telegraphic 
expedition,  whom  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  says  is  good 
authority,  says  there  are  few  or  no  codfish  in  Behring  Sea, 
and  he,  too,  gives  the  ' '  philosophy ' '  why  codfish  do  not  exist  up 
in  that  sea. 

There  is  one  other  subject  that  I  ought  to  speak  of,  and 
that  is  the  timber  of  this  region.  I  will  only  say  that  it  does 
not  exist  to  any  extent  on  the  Aleutian  Islands,  nor  north  of 
Cook's  inlet,  and  that  what  there  is  is  on  the  inaccessible  moun- 
tains that  skirt  the  coast  south  of  Mount  St.  Elias,  and  along  a 
strip  of  country  but  thirty  miles  wide. 

Now  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  pretty  clearly  demon- 
strated the  utter  worthlessness  of  this  Alaska  territory.  You 
are  not  simply  asked  to  appropriate  $7,200,000  in  gold  for  a 
worthless  country — if  we  could  get  off  with  that  I  might,  per- 
haps, be  content  to  submit  to  it — but  with  this  $7,200,000  come 
the  annual  expenses  of  this  territory,  in  my  judgment  amount- 
ing to  several  million  dollars  a  year,  with  no  corresponding 
return. 

You  will  recollect,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  called  attention  to 
the  agency  of  a  gallant  general  on  the  Pacific  coast  in  forcing 
this  purchase  upon  the  country.  I  will  now  read  from  a  letter 
of  his  of  May  22,  1867,  to  the  Adjutant- General  of  the  army, 
in  which  he  gives  his  opinion  as  to  how  much  this  country  will 
cost  us.  After  we  had  acquired  it  he  began  to  see  its  true 
character.     He  says: 

"This  country  and  the  adjacent  British  territory  contain  a 
very  large  Indian  population,  some  of  whose  tribes  are  war- 
like, and  of  a  character  far  superior  to  those  of  Oregon,  Cali- 
fornia, Nevada,  and  adjacent  countries.  Should  our  Indian 
system,  with  its  treaties,  annuities,  agents,  frauds,  and  pecula- 
tions, be  introduced  there,  Indian  wars  must  inevitably  follow, 
and  instead  of  a  few  companies  for  its  military  occupation  as 
many  regiments  will  be  called  for,  with  the  resulting  expendi- 
ture of  many  million  dollars  every  year." 

Such  are  the  kind  of  inhabitants  you  acquire  with  Alaska. 
It  is  said  this  is  only  a  little  sum;  only  $7,200,000.  Yes,  sir; 
it  is  only  $7,200,000.  But  let  me  tell  gentlemen  that  if  they 
pass  this  appropriation  it  will  be  but  a  few  days  before  you 


420  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

will  hear  of  the  ratification  by  the  Senate  of  the  treaty  for  the 
purchase  of  St.  Thomas ;  and  if  the  doctrine  of  my  friend  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Banks]  obtains  here,  you  cannot  avoid  pay- 
ing $7,500,000  more  for  the  purchase  of  St.  Thomas.  Now,  the 
gentleman  will  not  say  that  St.  Thomas  is  not  as  valuable  a 
purchase  as  Alaska.  If  we  pay  for  Alaska  we  shall  pay  for 
St.  Thomas. 

But  are  we  to  stop  with  the  purchase  of  Alaska  and  St. 
Thomas?  No,  sir.  I  believe  a  treaty  is  now  being  negotiated 
with  Denmark  for  the  purchase  of  Greenland  and  Iceland. 
[Laughter.]  Well,  gentlemen,  laugh  at  it.  I  tell  gentlemen 
who  go  for  Alaska  that  Greenland  to-day  is  a  better  purchase. 
And  the  man  who  votes  for  Alaska  must  vote  for  Greenland  or 
he  will  be  an  inconsistent  man.  This  is  not  mere  loose  talk.  I 
have  had  placed  upon  my  table  since  I  began  to  speak  to-day 
some  pages  of  a  document  now  printing  at  the  Government 
Printing  Office  for  the  State  Department,  which  shows  that 
the  purchase  of  Greenland  is  in  contemplation. 

Men  talk  about  ' '  manifest  destiny, ' '  and  assure  us  that  we 
are  destined  to  absorb  this  entire  continent,  and  the  idea  seems 
so  grand  that  no  one  feels  inclined  to  count  the  cost  or  inquire 
into  consequences.  When  that  day  comes  we  shall  cease  to  be 
the  ''United  States,"  but  "States  dissevered,  discordant,  bel- 
ligerent.'J  Sir,  I  will  be  no  party  to  the  inauguration  of  this 
policy  you  now  propose,  of  acquiring  remote  and  worthless  pos- 
sessions at  the  expense  of  my  constituents,  and  to  them  I  appeal 
for  my  justification. 

Other  speeches  upon  the  Alaska  Purchase  are  thus 
summarized  by  Mr.  Blaine  in  his  "Twenty  Years  of 
Congress" : 

General  Benjamin  F.  Butler  (Massachusetts)  sus- 
tained Mr.  Washburn's  position  in  a  characteristic 
speech,  especially  answering  General  Banks'  argument 
that  we  should  pay  this  amount  from  a  spirit  of  friend- 
ship for  Russia. 

"If  we  are  to  pay  this  price  as  usury  on  the  friendship  of 
Russia,  we  are  paying  for  it  very  dear  indeed.  If  we  are  to 
pay  for  her  friendship,  I  desire  to  give  her  the  seven  million 
two  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  cash,  and  let  her  keep  Alaska, 
because  I  think  it  may  be  a  small  sum  to  give  for  the  friendship 
if  we  could  only  get  rid  of  the  land,  or  rather  the  ice,  which 
we  are  to  get  by  paying  for  it." 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  421 

He  maintained  that  it  was  in  evidence  before  the 
House  officially  "that  for  ten  years  the  entire  product 
of  the  whole  country  of  Alaska  did  not  exceed  three 
million  dollars.' ' 

John  A.  Peters  (Maine)  pronounced  the  territory 
"intrinsically  valueless,  the  conclusive  proof  of  which 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  Russia  is  willing  to  sell  it." 
He  criticised  the  action  of  the  Senate  in  negotiating  the 
treaty. 

"If  the  treaty-making  power  can  buy,  they  can  sell.  If 
they  can  buy  land  with  money,  they  can  buy  money  with  land. 
If  they  can  buy  a  part  of  a  country,  they  can  buy  the  whole 
of  a  country.  If  they  can  sell  a  part  of  our  country,  they  can 
sell  the  whole  of  it!" 

Rufus  P.  Spalding  (Ohio)  on  the  other  hand  main- 
tained that  "notwithstanding  all  the  sneers  that  have 
been  cast  on  Alaska,  if  it  could  be  sold  again,  individuals 
would  take  it  off  our  hands  and  pay  us  two  or  three 
millions  for  the  bargain. ' ' * 

General  Robert  C.  Schenck  (Ohio)  thought  the  pur- 
chase in  itself  highly  objectionable,  but  was  "willing  to 
vote  the  money  because  the  treaty  had  been  made  with 
a  friendly  power ;  one  of  those  that  stood  by  us,  almost 
the  only  one  that  stood  by  us  when  all  the  rest  of  the 
powers  of  the  world  seemed  to  be  turning  away  from  us 
in  our  recent  troubles." 

Thaddeus  Stevens  (Pennsylvania)  supported  the 
measure  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  valuable  acquisi- 
tion to  the  wealth  and  power  of  the  country.  He  argued 
also  in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  make  the 
treaty. 

Leonard  Myers  (Pennsylvania)  was  sure  that  if  we 
did  not  acquire  Alaska  it  would  be  transferred  to  Great 
Britain. 

' '  The  nation  which  struggled  so  hard  for  Vancouver  and  her 
present  Pacific  boundary,  and  which  still  insists  on  having  the 
little  island  of  San  Juan,  will  never  let  such  an  opportunity 
slip.     Canada,  as  matters  now  stand,  would  become  ours  some 

1  Indeed,  one  proposition  to  this  effect  was  formally  presented  to  Con- 
gress. 


422  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

day  could  her  people  learn  to  be  Americans;  but  never  if  Eng- 
land secures  Alaska.' ' 

William  Higby  (California)  answered  the  objections 
relating  to  climate. 

"I  do  not  know  whether  the  people  of  the  East  yet  believe 
what  has  been  so  often  declared,  that  our  winters  on  the  Pacific 
are  nearly  as  mild  as  our  summers,  and  yet  such  is  the  fact." 

Samuel  Shellabarger  (Ohio)  opposed  the  purchase. 
He  said  those  nations  which  had  been  compact  and  solid 
had  been  the  most  enduring,  while  those  which  had  the 
most  extended  territory  lasted  the  least  space  of  time. 

Hiram  Price  (Iowa)  thought  that  it  was  "far  better 
to  expend  the  $7,200,000  in  improving  the  Mississippi 
river,  in  order  that  bread-stuffs  may  be  transported 
cheaply  from  the  West  to  the  seaboard."  He  had  no 
faith  in  the  value  of  the  territory  proposed  to  be  pur- 
chased. 

Dennis  McCarthy  (New  York)  rejected  the  plea  that 
we  should  purchase  Alaska  because  Russia  is  a  friendly 
power. 

"I  ask  this  House  whence  this  friendship  comes.  It  comes 
from  self-interest.  She  is  the  absorbing  power  of  the  eastern 
continent,  and  she  recognizes  us  as  the  absorbing  power  of  the 
western  continent ;  and  through  friendship  for  us  she  desires  to 
override  and  overbalance  the  governments  of  Europe  which  are 
between  her  and  us. ' ' 

General  Butler  moved  a  proviso,  that: 

1 '  The  payment  of  $500,000  of  said  appropriation  be  withheld 
until  the  imperial  government  of  Russia  shall  signify  its  willing- 
ness to  refer  to  an  impartial  tribunal  all  such  claims  by  Amer- 
ican citizens  against  the  imperial  government  as  have  been 
investigated  by  the  State  Department  of  the  United  States  and 
declared  to  be  just,  and  the  amounts  so  awarded  to  be  paid 
from  said  $500,000  so  withheld." 

General  James  A.  Garfield,  presiding  at  the  time  over 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  ruled  it  out  of  order,  and 


THE    PURCHASE    OF    ALASKA  423 

on  an  appeal  being  taken  the  decision  was  sustained  by 
93  ayes  and  27  nays.  After  dilatory  motions  and  the 
offer  of  various  amendments  which  were  rejected  the 
bill  was  passed  on  July  14  by  113  ayes  and  43  nays. 

The  House  prefaced  the  bill  by  a  preamble,  assert- 
ing in  effect  that  "the  subjects  embraced  in  the  treaty 
are  among  those  which  by  the  Constitution  are  sub- 
mitted to  the  power  of  Congress,  and  over  which  Con- 
gress has  jurisdiction,  and  for  these  reasons  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  consent  of  Congress  should  be  given  to 
the  said  stipulations  before  the  same  can  have  full  force 
and  effect.' f  There  was  no  mention  of  the  Senate's 
ratification,  merely  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  "the 
President  has  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  Emperor 
of  Eussia,  and  has  agreed  to  pay  him  the  sum  of  seven 
million,  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  coin.' '  The 
House  by  this  preamble  evidently  claimed  that  its  con- 
sent to  the  treaty  was  just  as  essential  as  the  consent 
of  the  Senate — that  it  was,  in  short,  a  subject  for  the 
consideration  of  Congress. 

The  Senate  was  unwilling  to  admit  such  a  pretension, 
especially  when  put  forth  by  the  House  in  this  bald  form, 
and  therefore  rejected  the  bill  unanimously.  The  mat- 
ter was  sent  to  conference,  and  by  changing  the  preamble 
a  compromise  was  promptly  effected,  which  preserved 
the  rank  and  dignity  of  both  branches.  It  declared  that 
"whereas  the  President  had  entered  into  a  treaty  with 
the  Emperor  of  Russia,  and  the  Senate  thereafter  gave 
its  advice  and  consent  to  said  treaty,  .  .  .  and 
whereas  said  stipulations  cannot  be  carried  into  full 
force  and  effect,  except  by  legislation  to  which  the  con- 
sent of  both  Houses  of  Congress  is  necessary;  therefore 
be  it  enacted  that  there  be  appropriated  the  sum  of 
$7,200,000 ' '  for  the  purpose  named.  With  this  compro- 
mise the  bill  was  readily  passed  and  became  a  law  by  the 
President's  approval  July  27,  1868. 

The  preamble  finally  agreed  upon,  says  Mr.  Blaine, 
though  falling  far  short  of  the  one  first  adopted  by  the 
House,  was  yet  regarded  as  a  victory  for  that  branch. 
The  issue  between  the  Senate  and  the  House,  now  ad- 
justed by  a  compromise,  was  an  old  one,  agitated  at 


424  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

different  periods  ever  since  the  controversy  over  the 
Jay  treaty  in  1794-95.  It  is  simply  whether  the  House 
is  bound  to  vote  for  an  appropriation  to  carry  out  a 
treaty  constitutionally  made  by  the  President  and  the 
Senate  without  judging  for  itself  whether,  on  the  merits 
of  the  treaty,  the  appropriation  should  be  made. 


CHAPTER  XV 
The  Alabama  Claims 

Depredations  by  the  Alabama  and  Other  Confederate  Privateers  on  North- 
ern Commerce — Great  Britain's  Complicity  in  the  Matter — Her  Early 
Eefusal  to  Grant  Eedress — Johnson-Clarendon  Treaty:  Senator  Charles 
Sumner  [Mass.]  Opposes  Its  Confirmation;  It  Is  Rejected — Negotiations 
Reopened  by  Great  Britain — Treaty  of  Washington  Submits  the  Ala- 
bama and  Other  Disputes  with  Great  Britain  to  Arbitration — Alabama 
Arbitrators  Find  in  Favor  of  the  United  States — Minor  British  Claims 
Allowed — Canadian  Boundary  Dispute  Settled  in  Favor  of  the  United 
States. 

THE  Declaration  of  Paris,  adopted  by  the  chief 
European  nations,  including  Great  Britain,  in 
1856,  abolished  privateering.  The  Confederate 
Government,  however,  adopted  the  practice  as  one  of  its 
first  acts,  and  a  number  of  privateers  set  out  from  South- 
ern ports  to  harass  the  commerce  of  the  North.  Mean- 
while Queen  Victoria  had  issued  a  proclamation  of  neu- 
trality in  the  American  war,  according  belligerent  rights 
to  both  contestants,  and  forbidding  her  subjects  to  equip 
or  aid  vessels  of  either  party.  Notwithstanding  this,  har- 
bors such  as  Nassau  in  the  British  West  Indies  became 
the  refuge  of  Confederate  cruisers — privateers  no  less 
than  blockade  runners. 

Against  this  practice  Charles  Francis  Adams,  the 
American  minister  to  Great  Britain,  made  firm  and 
frequent  protests  which  were  not  heeded. 

The  Confederate  privateer  Alabama  was  the  most 
notorious  offender  against  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 
She  was  built  at  Birkenhead,  England,  ostensibly  for  the 
use  of  British  subjects,  but  under  circumstances  which 
indicated  that  this  purpose  was  a  subterfuge,  and  that, 
so  soon  as  she  was  on  the  high  seas,  she  would  be  turned 
over  to  Confederates  for  privateering  purpose.    While 

425 


426  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

she  was  building  Minister  Adams  repeatedly  protested 
to  the  British  Government  that  this  was  the  purpose, 
and,  after  delaying  until  she  was  ready  to  sail,  the 
Government  took  feeble  measures  to  detain  her.  These 
were  evaded  by  the  vessel,  known  simply  as  ' •  No.  290, ' ' 
sailing  without  registry  or  clearance  on  July  29,  1862. 
She  took  on  her  equipment  from  two  English  vessels 
in  the  Azores,  assumed  the  name  Alabama,  and,  under 
command  of  Raphael  Semmes,  began  her  career  of  dep- 
redation on  United  States  commerce.  She  had  destroyed 
seventy  United  States  vessels,  before  her  own  destruc- 
tion on  June  19,  1864,  near  Cherbourg,  France,  by  the 
United  States  war  vessel,  the  Kearsarge,  John  A.  Wins- 
low,  commander.  Captain  Semmes  escaped  on  a  private 
English  yacht. 

In  similar  manner  other  Confederate  privateers  such 
as  the  Florida,  Georgia  and  Shenandoah  were  aided  by 
British  subjects,  and  in  this  escaped  the  attention  of 
British  officials.  These,  too,  committed  many  depreda- 
tions on  United  States  commerce,  the  total  direct  damage 
of  all  the  cruisers  being  enormous.  The  secondary 
damage  arising  from  the  decrease  of  American  shipping 
for  fear  of  loss  and  from  high  insurance  rates  was 
incalculable.  These  losses  greatly  increased  the  strength 
of  the  contention  of  the  Peace  party  in  the  North  that 
the  war  should  be  stopped  before  the  commerce  and 
industry  of  the  country  were  irreparably  injured. 
Thereby  Mr.  Lincoln's  Government  was  greatly  impeded 
in  the  prosecution  of  the  war. 

At  the  close  of  the  war  in  1865  Minister  Adams 
proposed  to  Lord  John  Russell,  the  British  foreign  sec- 
retary under  Lord  Palmerston,  premier  (whom  Russell 
succeeded  in  the  same  year  as  premier),  that  the  matter 
be  submitted  to  friendly  arbitration.  This  proposal  was 
flatly  refused.  Thereupon  William  H.  Seward,  the 
United  States  Secretary  of  State,  notified  the  British 
Government  that  no  further  efforts  for  arbitration  would 
be  made.  In  August,  1866,  he  submitted  to  the  British 
Government  a  list  of  individual  claims  for  damages  in- 
flicted by  the  Alabama.  Mr.  Stanley,  who  had  succeeded 
to  the  office  of  British  foreign  secretary  under  the  ad- 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  427 

ministration  of  his  father,  the  Earl  of  Derby,  who  had 
followed  Russell,  decisively  declined  to  receive  the 
claims.  The  Earl  of  Derby  died  in  1868  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Benjamin  Disraeli,  later  Earl  of  Beaconsfield. 

In  May,  1868,  Minister  Adams  retired  from  his 
mission,  and  in  June,  1868,  Reverdy  Johnson  succeeded 
him.  Before  he  could  reopen  negotiations  on  the  Ala- 
bama claims  Disraeli  was  succeeded  by  William  E.  Glad- 
stone, and  Lord  Stanley,  in  the  Foreign  Office,  by  the 
Earl  of  Clarendon. 

With  Lord  Clarendon,  Minister  Johnson,  with  the 
approval  of  Secretary  Seward,  promptly  agreed  upon  a 
treaty  in  the  matter,  which  reached  the  United  States  in 
February,  1869.  It  was  presented  to  the  Senate,  which 
acted  upon  it  in  executive  (secret)  session.  Charles 
Sumner  (Massachusetts),  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  opposed  confirmation  of  the  treaty 
in  a  speech  in  executive  session  on  April  13,  1869.  Later, 
after  confirmation  had  been  refused,  the  injunction  of 
secrecy  was  removed  by  order  of  the  Senate,  and  the 
speech  was  published  in  the  Congressional  Globe. 


Ouk  Claims  on  England 

Senator  Sumner 

I  do  not  disguise  the  importance  of  this  act;  but  I  believe 
that,  in  the  interest  of  peace,  which  every  one  should  have  at 
heart,  the  treaty  must  be  rejected.  A  treaty  which,  instead  of 
removing  an  existing  grievance,  leaves  it  for  heart-burning  and 
rancor,  cannot  be  considered  a  settlement  of  pending  questions 
between  two  nations.  It  may  seem  to  settle  them,  but  does 
not.  It  is  nothing  but  a  snare.  And  such  is  the  character  of 
the  treaty  now  before  us.  The  massive  grievance  under  which 
our  country  suffered  for  years  is  left  untouched;  the  painful 
sense  of  wrong  planted  in  the  national  heart  is  allowed  to  re- 
main. For  all  this  there  is  not  one  word  of  regret  or  even  of 
recognition;  nor  is  there  any  semblance  of  compensation.  It 
cannot  be  for  the  interest  of  either  party  that  such  a  treaty 
should  be  ratified.  It  cannot  promote  the  interest  of  the  United 
States,  for  we  naturally  seek  justice  as  the  foundation  of  a  good 
understanding  with  Great  Britain;  nor  can  it  promote  the  in- 


428  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

terest  of  Great  Britain,  which  must  also  seek  a  real  settlement 
of  all  pending  questions. 

If  we  look  at  the  negotiation,  which  immediately  preceded 
the  treaty,  we  find  little  to  commend.  You  have  it  on  your  table. 
I  think  I  am  not  mistaken  when  I  say  that  it  shows  a  haste 
which  finds  few  precedents  in  diplomacy,  but  which  is  ex- 
plained by  the  anxiety  to  reach  a  conclusion  before  the  advent 
of  a  new  Administration.  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Reverdy  John- 
son both  unite  in  this  unprecedented  activity,  using  the  Atlantic 
cable  freely.  I  should  not  object  to  haste  or  to  the  freest  use 
of  the  cable  if  the  result  were  such  as  could  be  approved;  but, 
considering  the  character  of  the  transaction,  and  how  completely 
the  treaty  conceals  the  main  cause  of  offence,  it  seems  as  if  the 
honorable  negotiators  were  engaged  in  huddling  something  out 
of  sight. 

The  treaty  has  for  its  model  the  Claims  Convention  of  1853. 
To  take  such  a  convention  as  a  model  was  a  strange  mistake. 
This  convention  was  for  the  settlement  of  outstanding  claims 
of  American  citizens  on  Great  Britain,  and  of  British  subjects 
on  the  United  States,  which  had  arisen  since  the  treaty  of 
Ghent  in  1815.  It  concerned  individuals  only  and  not  the 
nation.  It  was  not  in  any  respect  political;  nor  was  it  to  re- 
move any  sense  of  national  wrong.  To  take  such  a  convention 
as  the  model  for  a  treaty,  which  was  to  determine  a  national 
grievance  of  transcendant  importance  in  the  relations  of  two 
countries,  marked  on  the  threshold  an  insensibility  to  the  true 
nature  of  the  difference  to  be  settled.  At  once  it  belittled  the 
work  to  be  done. 

An  inspection  of  the  treaty  shows  how  from  beginning  to 
end  it  is  merely  for  the  settlement  of  individual  claims  on 
both  sides,  putting  both  batches  on  an  equality — so  that  the 
sufferers  by  the  misconduct  of  England  may  be  counterbalanced 
by  British  blockade-runners. 

The  provisions  of  the  treaty  are  for  the  trial  of  these  cases. 
A  commission  is  constituted,  which  is  empowered  to  choose  an 
arbitrator;  but  in  the  event  of  a  failure  to  agree,  the  arbitrator 
shall  be  determined  "by  lot"  out  of  two  persons  named  by 
each  side.  Even  if  this  aleatory  proceeding  were  a  proper 
device  in  the  umpirage  of  private  claims,  it  is  strangely  incon- 
sistent with  the  solemnity  which  belongs  to  the  present  ques- 
tion. The  moral  sense  is  disturbed  by  such  a  process  at  any 
stage  of  the  trial ;  nor  is  it  satisfied  by  the  subsequent  provision 
for  the  selection  of  a  sovereign  or  head  of  a  friendly  state  as 
arbitrator. 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  429 

The  treaty  not  merely  makes  no  provision  for  the  determina- 
tion of  the  great  question,  but  it  seems  to  provide  expressly 
that  it  shall  never  hereafter  be  presented.  The  petty  provision 
for  individual  claims,  subject  to  a  set-off  from  the  individual 
claims  of  England,  so  that  in  the  end  our  country  may  possibly 
receive  nothing,  is  the  consideration  for  this  strange  surrender. 
I  borrow  a  term  from  an  English  statesman  on  another  occa- 
sion, if  I  call  it  a  "  capitulation. ' '  For  the  settlement  of  a  few 
individual  claims  we  condone  the  original,  far-reaching,  and 
destructive  wrong. 

Whatever  the  treaty  may  say  in  terms,  there  is  no  settlement 
in  fact,  and,  until  this  is  made,  there  will  be  a  constant  menace 
of  discord.  Nor  can  it  be  forgotten  that  there  is  no  recognition 
of  the  rule  of  international  duty  applicable  to  such  cases. 
This,  too,  is  left  unsettled. 

While  doing  so  little  for  us  the  treaty  makes  ample  provision 
for  all  known  claims  on  the  British  side.  As  these  are  exclu- 
sively " individual' '  they  are  completely  covered  by  the  text, 
which  has  no  limitations  or  exceptions.  Already  it  is  announced 
in  England  that  even  those  of  "confederate  bondholders"  are 
included.  I  have  before  me  an  English  journal  which  describes 
the  latter  claims  as  founded  on  "immense  quantities  of  cotton, 
worth  at  the  time  of  their  seizure  nearly  two  shillings  a  pound, 
which  were  then  in  the  legal  possession  of  those  bondholders"; 
and  the  same  authority  adds,  "these  claims  will  be  brought,  in- 
differently with  others,  before  the  designed  joint  commission 
whenever  it  shall  sit."  From  another  quarter  I  learn  that 
these  bondholders  are  "very  sanguine  of  success  under  the 
treaty  as  it  is  worded,  and  certain  it  is  that  the  loan  went  up 
from  0  to  10  as  soon  as  it  was  ascertained  that  the  treaty  was 
signed."  I  doubt  if  the  American  people  are  ready  just  now 
to  provide  for  any  such  claims.  That  they  have  risen  in  the 
markets  is  an  argument  against  the  treaty. 

Passing  from  the  treaty,  I  come  now  to  consider  briefly,  but 
with  proper  precision,  the  true  ground  of  complaint;  and  here 
again  we  shall  see  the  constant  inadequacy  of  the  remedy  now 
applied. 

Here  the  speaker  recalled  British  recognition  of  Con- 
federate belligerency  on  the  sea  as  well  as  on  the  land. 

Ocean  belligerency  being  a  "fact,"  and  not  a  "principle," 
can  be  recognized  only  on  evidence  showing  its  actual  existence, 
according  to  the  rule,  first  stated  by  Mr.  Canning  and  afterward 


430  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

recognized  by  Earl  Russell.  But  no  such  evidence  was  adduced ; 
for  it  did  not  exist  and  never  has  existed. 

Too  much  stress  cannot  be  laid  upon  the  rule  that  belliger- 
ency is  a  ' '  fact ' '  and  not  a  ' '  principle. ' '  It  is,  perhaps,  the  most 
important  contribution  to  this  discussion,  and  its  original  state- 
ment, on  the  occasion  of  the  Greek  revolution,  does  honor  to 
its  author,  unquestionably  the  brightest  genius  ever  directed 
to  this  subject.  According  to  this  rule,  belligerency  must  be 
proved  to  exist,  it  must  be  shown.  It  cannot  be  imagined  or 
divined  or  invented;  it  must  exist  as  a  "fact"  within  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  world,  or  at  least  as  a  "fact"  susceptible  of  proof. 
Nor  can  it  be  inferred  on  the  ocean  merely  from  its  existence  on 
the  land.  From  the  beginning,  when  God  called  the  dry  land 
earth  and  the  gathering  of  the  waters  called  He  seas,  the  two 
have  been  separate,  and  the  power  over  one  has  not  necessarily 
implied  power  over  the  other.  There  is  a  dominion  of  the  land 
and  a  dominion  of  the  ocean.  But,  whatever  power  the  rebels 
possessed  on  the  land,  they  were  always  without  power  on 
the  ocean.  Admitting  that  they  were  belligerents  on  the  land, 
they  were  never  belligerents  on  the  ocean: 

The  oak  leviathans,  whose  huge  ribs  make 
Their  clay  creator  the  vain  title  take 
Of  Lord  of  thee,  and  arbiter  of  war; 

these  they  never  possessed.  Such  was  the  "fact"  that  must 
govern  the  present  question.  The  rule,  so  simple,  plain,  and 
intelligible,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Canning,  is  a  decisive  touch-stone 
of  the  British  concession,  which,  when  brought  to  it,  is  found 
to  be  without  support. 

Unfriendly  in  the  precipitancy  with  which  it  was  launched, 
this  concession  was  more  unfriendly  in  substance.  It  was  the 
first  stage  in  the  depredations  on  our  commerce.  Had  it  not 
been  made  no  rebel  ship  could  have  been  built  in  England. 
Every  step  in  her  building  would  have  been  piracy.  Nor  could 
any  munitions  of  war  have  been  furnished.  The  direct  conse- 
quence of  this  concession  was  to  place  the  rebels  on  an  equality 
with  ourselves  in  all  British  markets,  whether  of  ships  or 
munitions  of  war.  As  these  were  open  to  the  national  Govern- 
ment, so  were  they  open  to  the  rebels.  The  asserted  neutrality 
between  the  two  began  by  this  tremendous  concession  when 
rebels,  at  one  stroke,  were  transformed  not  only  into  belliger- 
ents, but  into  customers. 

In  attributing  to  that  bad  proclamation  this  peculiar  influ- 
ence I  follow  the  authority  of  the  law  lords  of  England,  who, 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  431 

according  to  authentic  report,  announced  that,  without  it,  the 
fitting  out  of  a  ship  in  England  to  cruise  against  the  United 
States  would  have  been  an  act  of  piracy.  That  England  became 
an  "arsenal"  for  the  rebels  we  know,  but  this  could  not  have 
been  unless  the  proclamation  had  prepared  the  way. 

The  only  justification  that  I  have  heard  for  this  extraor- 
dinary concession,  which  unleashed  upon  our  country  the  furies 
of  foreign  war  to  commingle  with  the  furies  of  rebellion  at 
home,  is  that  President  Lincoln  undertook  to  proclaim  a  block- 
ade of  the  rebel  ports.  By  the  use  of  this  word  ■ '  blockade ' '  the 
concession  is  vindicated.  Had  President  Lincoln  proclaimed 
a  closing  of  the  rebel  ports,  there  could  have  been  no  such  con- 
cession. This  is  a  mere  technicality.  Lawyers  might  call  it  an 
apex  juris;  and  yet  on  this  sharp  point  England  hangs  her 
defence.  It  is  sufficient  that  in  a  great  case  like  the  present, 
where  the  correlative  duties  of  a  friendly  power  are  in  question, 
an  act  fraught  with  such  portentous  evil  cannot  be  vindicated 
on  a  technicality.  In  this  debate  there  is  no  room  for  techni- 
cality on  either  side.  We  must  look  at  the  substance  and  find 
a  reason  in  nothing  short  of  overruling  necessity.  War  cannot 
be  justified  merely  on  a  technicality;  nor  can  the  concession  of 
ocean  belligerency  to  rebels  without  a  port  or  prize  court. 
Such  a  concession,  like  war  itself,  must  be  at  the  peril  of  the 
nation  making  it. 

The  British  assumption,  besides  being  offensive  from  mere 
technicality,  is  inconsistent  with  the  proclamation  of  the  Presi- 
dent, taken  as  a  whole,  which,  while  appointing  a  blockade,  is 
careful  to  reserve  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  thus  putting  foreign 
powers  on  their  guard  against  any  premature  concession.  After 
declaring  an  existing  insurrection  in  certain  States,  and  the 
obstruction  of  the  laws  for  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  as  the 
motive  for  action,  the  President  invokes  not  only  the  law  of 
nations  but  the  "laws  of  the  United  States,"  and,  in  further 
assertion  of  the  national  sovereignty,  declares  rebel  cruisers  to 
be  pirates.  Clearly  the  proclamation  must  be  taken  as  a  whole 
and  its  different  provisions  so  interpreted  as  to  harmonize  with 
each  other.  If  they  cannot  stand  together,  then  it  is  the  ' '  block- 
ade" which  must  be  modified  by  the  national  sovereignty  and 
not  the  national  sovereignty  by  the  blockade.  Such  should 
have  been  the  interpretation  of  a  friendly  power,  especially 
when  it  is  considered  that  there  are  numerous  precedents  of 
what  the  great  German  authority,  Heffter,  calls  "pacific  block- 
ade," or  blockade  without  concession  of  ocean  belligerency, 
as,  in  the  case  of  France,  England  and  Russia  against  Turkey, 


432  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

1827 ;  France  against  Mexico,  1837-39 ;  France  and  Great  Britain 
against  the  Argentine  Republic,  1838-48 ;  Russia  against  the  Cir- 
cassians, 1831-36,  illustrated  by  the  seizure  of  the  Vixen  so 
famous  in  diplomatic  history  (Hautefeuille,  Des  Droits  et  des 
Devoirs  des  Neutres).  Cases  like  these  led  Heffter  to  lay  down 
the  rule  that  "blockade"  does  not  necessarily  constitute  a  state 
of  regular  war  (Droit  International,  Sees.  112,  121),  as  was 
assumed  by  the  British  proclamation — even  in  the  face  of  posi- 
tive words  by  President  Lincoln  asserting  the  national  sover- 
eignty and  appealing  to  the  '  '  laws  of  the  United  States. ' '  The 
existence  of  such  cases  was  like  a  notice  to  the  British  govern- 
ment against  the  concession  so  rashly  made.  It  was  an  all- 
sufficient  warning,  which  this  power  disregarded. 

So  far  as  is  now  known,  the  whole  case  for  England  is  made 
to  stand  on  the  use  of  the  word  " blockade"  by  President  Lin- 
coln. Had  he  used  any  other  word  the  concession  of  belliger- 
ency would  have  been  without  justification,  even  such  as  is 
now  imagined.  It  was  this  word  which,  with  magical  might, 
opened  the  gates  to  all  those  bountiful  supplies  by  which  hostile 
expeditions  were  equipped  against  the  United  States.  It  opened 
the  gates  of  war.  Most  appalling  is  it  to  think  that  one  little 
word,  unconsciously  used  by  a  trusting  President,  could  be 
caught  up  by  a  friendly  power  and  made  to  play  such  a  part 

I  may  add  that  there  is  one  other  word  often  invoked  for 
apology.  It  is  " neutrality,' '  which,  it  is  said,  was  proclaimed 
between  two  belligerents.  Nothing  could  be  fairer,  always  pro- 
vided that  the  "  neutrality ' '  proclaimed  did  not  begin  with  a 
concession  to  one  party,  without  which  this  party  would  be  pow- 
erless. Between  two  established  nations,  both  independent, 
as  between  Russia  and  France,  there  may  be  neutrality ;  for  the 
two  arje  already  equal  in  rights,  and  the  proclamation  would 
be  precisely  equal  in  its  operation.  But  where  one  party  is 
an  established  nation  and  the  other  is  nothing  but  an  odious 
combination  of  rebels,  the  proclamation  is  most  unequal  in 
operation;  for  it  begins  by  a  solemn  investiture  of  rebels  with 
all  the  rights  of  war,  saying  to  them,  as  was  once  said  to  the 
youthful  knight,  "Rise;  here  is  a  sword;  use  it."  To  call  such 
an  investiture  a  proclamation  of  neutrality  is  a  misnomer.  It 
was  a  proclamation  of  equality  between  the  national  Govern- 
ment on  the  one  side  and  rebels  on  the  other,  and  no  plausible 
word  can  obscure  this  distinctive  character. 

Here  the  speaker  recounted  the  building  and  escape 
of  the  "pirate"  ships. 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  433 

Here  beyond  all  question  was  negligence,  or,  according  to 
the  language  of  Lord  Brougham  on  another  occasion,  "crass 
negligence,"  making  England  justly  responsible  for  all  that 
ensued. 

Lord  Russell,  while  trying  to  vindicate  his  government  and 
repelling  the  complaints  of  the  United  States,  more  than  once 
admitted  that  the  escape  of  the  Alabama  was  a  "scandal  and 
a  reproach, ' '  which,  to  my  mind,  is  very  like  a  confession.  Lan- 
guage could  not  be  stronger.  Surely  such  an  act  cannot  be 
blameless.  If  damages  are  ever  awarded  to  a  friendly  power 
for  injuries  received  it  is  difficult  to  see  where  they  could  be 
more  strenuously  claimed  than  in  a  case,  which  the  First  Min- 
ister of  the  offending  power  did  not  hesitate  to  characterize  so 
strongly. 

Here  the  speaker  presented  evidence  showing  the  en- 
listment of  a  crew,  many  of  the  " royal  navy  reserve,' ' 
with  the  express  understanding  that  they  were  to  engage 
in  privateering  against  United  States  commerce. 

The  dedication  of  the  ship  to  the  rebel  service,  from  the 
very  laying  of  the  keel  and  the  organization  of  her  voyage  with 
England  as  her  naval  base,  from  which  she  drew  munitions  of 
war  and  men,  made  her  departure  as  much  a  hostile  expedition 
as  if  she  had  sailed  forth  from  Her  Majesty's  dockyard.  At 
a  moment  of  profound  peace  between  the  United  States  and 
England  there  was  a  hostile  expedition  against  the  United 
States.  It  was  in  no  just  sense  a  commercial  transaction,  but 
an  act  of  war. 

The  case  is  not  yet  complete.  The  Alabama,  whose  building 
was  in  defiance  of  law,  international  and  municipal,  whose  es- 
cape was  ' '  a  scandal  and  reproach, ' '  and  whose  enlistment  of  her 
crew  was  a  fit  sequel  to  the  rest,  after  being  supplied  with  an 
armament  and  with  a  rebel  commander,  entered  upon  her  career 
of  piracy.  Mark,  now,  a  new  stage  of  complicity.  Constantly 
the  pirate  ship  was  within  reach  of  British  cruisers,  and,  from 
time  to  time,  within  the  shelter  of  British  ports.  For  six  days 
unmolested  she  enjoyed  the  pleasant  hospitality  of  Kingston, 
in  Jamaica,  obtaining  freely  the  coal  and  other  supplies  so  nec- 
essary to  her  vocation.  But  no  British  cruiser,  no  British  magis- 
trate ever  arrested  the  offending  ship,  whose  voyage  was  a  con- 
tinuing "scandal  and  reproach' '  to  the  British  government. 

The  excuse  for  this  strange  license  is  a  curious  technicality, 
as  if  a  technicality  could  avail  in  this  case  at  any  stage.    Bor- 


434  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

rowing  a  phrase  from  that  master  of  admiralty  jurisprudence, 
Sir  William  Scott,  it  is  said  that  the  ship  "deposited"  her  orig- 
inal sin  at  the  conclusion  of  her  voyage,  so  that  afterward  she 
was  blameless.  But  the  Alabama  never  concluded  her  voyage 
until  she  sank  under  the  guns  of  the  Kearsarge,  because  she 
never  had  a  port  of  her  own.  She  was  no  better  than  the  Flying 
Dutchman,  and  so  long  as  she  sailed  was  liable  for  that  original 
sin  which  had  impregnated  every  plank  with  an  indelible  dye. 
No  British  cruiser  could  allow  her  to  proceed,  no  British  port 
could  give  her  shelter  without  renewing  the  complicity  of 
England. 

Thus  her  depredations  and  burnings,  making  the  ocean 
blaze,  all  proceeded  from  England,  which,  by  three  different 
acts,  lighted  the  torch.  To  England  must  be  traced  also  all  the 
widespread  consequences  which  ensued. 

I  take  the  case  of  the  Alabama  because  it  is  the  best  known, 
and  because  the  building,  equipment,  and  escape  of  this  ship 
were  under  circumstances  most  obnoxious  to  judgment;  but 
it  will  not  be  forgotten  that  there  were  consort  ships,  built  under 
the  shelter  of  that  fatal  proclamation,  issued  in  such  an  eclipse 
of  just  principles,  and,  like  the  ships  it  unloosed,  "rigged  with 
curses  dark."  One  after  the  other  ships  were  built;  one  after 
the  other,  they  escaped  on  their  errand ;  and,  one  after  the  other, 
they  enjoyed  the  immunities  of  British  ports.  Audacity  reached 
its  height  when  iron-clad  rams  were  built,  and  the  perversity 
of  the  British  government  became  still  more  conspicuous  by  its 
long  refusal  to  arrest  these  destructive  engines  of  war,  destined 
to  be  employed  against  the  United  States.  This  protracted  hesi- 
tation, where  the  consequences  were  so  menacing,  is  a  part  of 
the  case. 

It  is  plain  that  the  ships  which  were  built  under  the  safe- 
guard of  this  ill-omened  proclamation;  which  stole  forth  from 
the  British  shores  and  afterward  enjoyed  the  immunities  of 
British  ports,  were  not  only  British  in  origin,  but  British  in 
equipment,  British  in  armament,  and  British  in  crews.  They 
were  British  in  every  respect,  except  in  their  commanders,  who 
were  rebel,  and  one  of  these,  as  his  ship  was  sinking,  owed  his 
safety  to  a  British  yacht,  symbolizing  the  omnipresent  support 
of  England.  British  sympathies  were  active  in  their  behalf. 
The  cheers  of  a  British  passenger  ship  crossing  the  path  of  the 
Alabama  encouraged  the  work  of  piracy,  and  the  cheers  of  the 
House  of  Commons  encouraged  the  builder  of  the  Alabama, 
while  he  defended  what  he  had  done  and  exclaimed,  in  taunt  to 
him  who  is  now  an  illustrious  member  of  the  British  Cabinet, 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  435 

John  Bright,  that  he  "would  rather  be  handed  down  to  poster- 
ity as  the  builder  of  a  dozen  Alabamas"  than  be  the  author  of 
the  speeches  of  that  gentleman  "crying  up"  the  institutions 
of  the  United  States,  which  the  builder  of  the  Alabama,  rising 
with  his  theme,  denounced  "as  of  no  value  whatever  and  as 
reducing  the  very  name  of  liberty  to  an  utter  absurdity, ' '  while 
the  cheers  of  the  House  of  Commons  echoed  back  his  words. 

There  are  two  circumstances  by  which  the  whole  case  is 
aggravated.  One  is  found  in  the  date  of  the  proclamation, 
which  lifted  the  rebels  to  an  equality  with  the  national  Govern- 
ment j  opening  to  them  everything  that  was  open  to  us,  whether 
shipyard,  foundries,  or  manufactories ;  and  giving  to  them  a  flag 
on  the  ocean  coequal  with  the  flag  of  the  Union.  This  extraor- 
dinary manifesto  was  issued  on  the  day  before  the  arival  of 
our  minister  in  England.  The  British  government  knew  of  his 
coming.    But  in  hottest  haste  they  did  this  thing. 

The  other  aggravation  is  found  in  its  flagrant,  unnatural 
departure  from  that  anti-slavery  rule,  which,  by  manifold  dec- 
larations, legislative,  political,  and  diplomatic,  was  the  avowed 
creed  of  England.  Often  was  this  rule  proclaimed,  but,  if  we 
except  the  great  act  of  emancipation,  never  more  pointedly  than 
in  the  famous  circular  of  Lord  Palmerston,  while  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  announcing  to  all  nations  that  England  was 
pledged  to  the  universal  abolition  of  slavery.  And  now,  when 
slaveholders,  in  the  very  madness  of  barbarism,  broke  away 
from  the  national  Government  and  attempted  to  found  a  new 
empire  with  slavery  as  its  declared  cornerstone,  anti-slavery 
England,  without  a  day's  delay,  without  even  waiting  the  ar- 
rival of  our  minister,  who  was  known  to  be  on  his  way,  made 
haste  to  decree  that  this  shameful  and  impossible  pretension 
should  enjoy  equal  rights  with  the  national  Government  in  her 
shipyards,  foundries,  and  manufactories,  and  equal  rights  on 
the  ocean.  Such  was  the  decree.  Rebel  slaveholders,  occupied 
in  a  hideous  attempt,  were  taken  by  the  hand,  and  thus,  with 
the  official  protection  and  the  God-speed  of  anti-slavery  Eng- 
land^ commenced  their  accursed  work. 

I  close  this  part  of  the  argument  by  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Bright,  who,  in  a  speech  at  Rochdale,  among  his  neighbors, 
February  3,  1863,  thus  exhibits  the  criminal  complicity  of 
England : 

"I  regret  more  than  I  have  words  to  express  this  painful 
fact,  that,  of  all  the  countries  in  Europe,  this  country  is  the 
only  one  which  has  men  in  it  who  are  willing  to  take  steps  in 
favor  of  this  intended  slave  government.    We  supply  the  ships ; 


436  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

we  supply  the  arms,  the  munitions  of  war;  we  give  aid  and  com- 
fort to  the  foulest  of  crimes.  Englishmen  only  do  it." — Bright1 's 
Speeches,  Vol.  I,  p.  239. 

At  last  the  rebellion  succumbed.  British  ships  and  British 
supplies  had  done  their  work,  but  they  failed.  And  now  the 
day  of  reckoning  has  come;  but  with  little  apparent  sense  of 
what  is  due  on  the  part  of  England.  Without  one  soothing  word 
for  a  friendly  power  deeply  aggrieved,  without  a  single  regret 
for  what  Mr.  Cobden,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  called  "the 
cruel  losses"  inflicted  upon  us,  or  for  what  Mr.  Bright  called 
"aid  and  comfort  to  the  foulest  of  crimes/ '  or  for  what  a  gen- 
erous voice  from  Oxford  University  denounced  as  a  "flagrant 
and  maddening  wrong,"  England  simply  proposes  to  submit 
the  question  of  liability  for  "individual  losses"  to  an  anomalous 
tribunal  where  chance  plays  its  part.  This  is  all.  Nothing  is 
admitted  even  on  this  question;  no  rule  for  the  future  is  estab- 
lished ;  while  nothing  is  said  of  the  indignity  to  the  nation,  nor 
of  the  damages  to  the  nation.  On  an  earlier  occasion  it  was 
otherwise. 

Here  the  speaker  referred  to  the  Chesapeake  affair 
(see  page  129). 

The  brilliant  Mr.  Canning,  British  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs, promptly  volunteered  overtures  for  an  accommodation, 
by  declaring  His  Majesty's  readiness  to  take  the  whole  of  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  into  consideration  and  "to  make  rep- 
aration for  any  alleged  injury  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States,  whenever  it  should  be  clearly  shown  that  such  injury 
has  been  actually  sustained  and  that  such  reparation  is  really 
due."  After  years  of  painful  negotiation  the  British  minister 
at  Washington,  under  date  of  November  1,  1811,  offered  to  the 
United  States  three  propositions:  first,  the  disavowal  of  the 
unauthorized  act;  secondly,  the  immediate  restoration,  so  far 
as  circumstances  would  permit,  of  the  men  forcibly  taken  from 
the  Chesapeake;  and,  thirdly,  a  suitable  pecuniary  provision 
for  the  sufferers  in  consequence  of  the  attack  on  the  Chesapeake. 

I  adduce  this  historic  instance  to  illustrate  partly  the  differ- 
ent forms  of  reparation.  Here,  of  course,  was  reparation  to 
individuals;  but  there  was  also  reparation  to  the  nation,  whose 
sovereignty  had  been  outraged. 

The  speaker  then  referred  to  the  burning  by 
Canadians  of  the  American  vessel  Carolina  in  1837. 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  437 

Mr.  Webster,  in  his  negotiation  with  Lord  Ashburton,  char- 
acterized this  act  as  *  *  of  itself  a  wrong  and  offence  to  the  sover- 
eignty and  the  dignity  of  the  United  States,  for  which  to  this  day 
no  atonement,  or  even  apology,  has  been  made  by  Her  Majesty's 
government";  all  these  words  being  strictly  applicable  to  the 
present  case.  Lord  Ashburton,  in  reply,  after  recapitulating 
some  mitigating  circumstances  and  expressing  a  regret  ''that 
some  explanation  and  apology  for  this  occurrence  was  not  im- 
mediately made,"  proceeds  to  make  these.  Here  again  was 
reparation  for  a  wrong  done  to  the  nation. 

Looking  at  what  is  due  to  us  on  the  present  occasion,  we 
are  brought  again  to  the  conclusion  that  the  satisfaction  of  in- 
dividuals whose  ships  have  been  burned  or  sunk  is  only  a  small 
part  of  what  we  may  justly  expect.  As  in  the  earlier  cases 
where  the  national  sovereignty  was  insulted,  there  should  be  an 
acknowledgment  of  wrong,  or  at  least  of  liability,  leaving  to  the 
commissioners  the  assessment  of  damages  only.  The  blow  in- 
flicted by  that  fatal  proclamation,  which  insulted  our  national 
sovereignty  and  struck  at  our  unity  as  a  nation,  followed  by 
broadside  upon  broadside,  driving  our  commerce  from  the  ocean, 
was  kindred  in  character  to  those  earlier  blows,  and,  when 
we  consider  that  it  was  in  aid  of  slavery,  it  was  a  blow  at  civil- 
ization itself.  Besides  degrading  us  and  ruining  our  commerce, 
its  direct  and  constant  influence  was  to  encourage  the  rebel- 
lion, and  to  prolong  the  war  waged  by  slave  masters  at  such 
cost  of  treasure  and  blood.  It  was  a  terrible  mistake,  which 
I  cannot  doubt  that  good  Englishmen  must  regret.  And  now, 
in  the  interest  of  peace,  it  is  the  duty  of  both  sides  to  find  a 
remedy,  complete,  just,  and  conciliatory,  so  that  the  deep  sense 
of  wrong  and  the  detriment  to  the  republic  may  be  forgotten 
in  that  proper  satisfaction  which  a  nation  loving  justice  cannot 
hesitate  to  offer. 

Individual  losses  may  be  estimated  with  reasonable  accu- 
racy. Ships  burned  or  sunk  with  their  cargoes  may  be  counted 
and  their  value  determined ;  but  this  leaves  without  recognition 
the  vaster  damage  to  commerce  driven  from  the  ocean,  and  that 
other  damage,  immense  and  infinite,  caused  by  the  prolongation 
of  the  war,  all  of  which  may  be  called  national  in  contradis- 
tinction to  individual. 

Our  national  losses  have  been  frankly  conceded  by  eminent 
Englishmen.  I  have  already  quoted  Mr.  Cobden,  who  did  not 
hesitate  to  call  them  "cruel  losses."  During  the  same  debate 
in  which  he  let  drop  this  testimony,  he  used  other  words,  which 
show  how  justly  he  comprehended  the  case.    "You  have  been," 


438  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

said  he,  "carrying  on  war  from  these  shores  with  the  United 
States,  and  have  been  inflicting  an  amount  of  damage  on  that 
country  greater  than  would  be  produced  by  many  ordinary 
wars.  It  is  estimated  that  the  loss  sustained  by  the  capture 
and  burning  of  American  vessels  has  been  about  $15,000,000,  or 
nearly  £3,000,000  sterling.  But  this  is  a  small  part  of  the  in- 
jury which  has  been  inflicted  on  the  American  marine.  We 
have  rendered  the  rest  of  her  vast  mercantile  property  useless.' ' 
After  confessing  his  fears  with  regard  to  "the  heaping  up  of  a 
gigantic  material  grievance  such  as  was  then  rearing,' '  he  adds, 
in  memorable  words: 

"You  have  already  done  your  worst  toward  the  American 
mercantile  marine.  What,  with  the  high  rate  of  insurance,  what 
with  these  captures,  and  what  with  the  amount  of  damage  you 
have  done  to  that  which  is  left,  you  have  virtually  made  value- 
less that  vast  property.  Why,  if  you  had  gone  and  helped  the 
Confederates  by  bombarding  all  the  accessible  seaport  towns 
of  America  a  few  lives  might  have  been  lost  which,  as  it  is, 
have  not  been  sacrificed,  but  you  could  hardly  have  done  more 
injury  in  the  way  of  destroying  property  than  you  have  done 
by  these  cruisers.     [Hear,  hear.]  " 

In  the  same  debate  William  E.  Forster  said  that  so  entirely 
was  our  commerce  driven  from  the  ocean  that  for  six  weeks 
not  an  American  vessel  was  seen  by  the  Georgia  on  her  second 
cruise. 

Mr.  Forster  announced  that  "the  carrying  trade  of  the 
United  States  was  transferred  to  British  merchants";  and  Mr. 
Cobden  declared  this  circumstance  to  be  "the  gravest  part  of 
the  question  of  our  relations  with  America.' '  But  this  "gravest 
part"  is  left  untouched  by  the  pending  treaty. 

Such  is  the  candid  and  explicit  testimony  of  Englishmen, 
pointing  the  way  to  the  proper  rule  of  damages. 

I  refer  to  the  interesting  report  of  Mr.  Morse,  our  consul  at 
London,  made  during  the  last  year  and  published  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State.  After  a  minute  inquiry  the  report  shows  that, 
on  the  breaking  out  of  the  rebellion  in  1861,  the  entire  tonnage 
of  the  United  States,  coasting  and  registered,  was  5,539,813 
tons,  of  which  2,642,625  tons  were  registered  and  employed  in 
foreign  trade,  and  that,  at  the  close  of  the  rebellion  in  1865, 
notwithstanding  an  increase  in  coasting  tonnage,  our  registered 
tonnage  had  fallen  to  1,602,528  tons,  being  a  loss  during  the 
four  years  of  more  than  a  million  tons,  amounting  to  about 
forty  per  cent,  of  our  foreign  commerce.  During  the  same  four 
years  the  total  tonnage  of  the  British  empire  rose  from  5,895,- 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  439 

369  tons  to  7,322,604  tons,  the  increase  being  especially  in  the 
foreign  trade.  The  report  proceeds  to  say  that,  as  to  the  cause 
of  the  decrease  in  America  and  the  corresponding  increase  in  the 
British  empire,  "there  can  be  no  room  for  question  or  doubt." 
Beyond  the  actual  loss  in  the  national  tonnage  there  was  a 
further  loss  in  the  arrest  of  our  natural  increase  in  this  branch 
of  industry,  which  an  intelligent  statistician  puts  at  five  per 
cent,  annually,  making,  in  1866,  a  total  loss  on  this  account  of 
1,384,958  tons,  which  must  be  added  to  1,229,035  tons  actually 
lost.  The  same  statistician,  after  estimating  the  value  of  a  ton 
at  forty  dollars  gold,  and  making  allowance  for  old  and  new 
ships,  puts  the  sum  total  of  national  loss  on  this  account  at 
$110,000,000. 

To  these  authorities  I  add  that  of  the  National  Board  of 
Trade,  which,  in  a  recent  report  on  American  shipping,  after 
setting  forth  the  diminution  of  our  sailing  tonnage,  says  that  it 
is  all  to  be  traced  to  the  war  on  the  ocean,  and  the  result  is 
summed  up  in  the  words,  that,  "while  the  tonnage  of  the  na- 
tion was  rapidly  disappearing  by  the  ravages  of  the  rebel  cruis- 
ers and  by  sales  abroad,  there  was  no  construction  of  new  vessels 
going  forward  to  counteract  the  decline  even  in  part. ' '  Such  is 
the  various  testimony,  all  tending  to  one  conclusion. 

This  is  what  I  have  to  say  for  the  present  on  national  losses 
through  the  destruction  of  commerce.  These  are  large  enough; 
but  there  is  another  chapter  where  they  are  larger  far.  I 
refer,  of  course,  to  the  national  losses  caused  by  the  prolonga- 
tion of  the  war  and  traceable  directly  to  England.  No  candid 
person,  who  studies  this  eventual  period,  can  doubt  that  the 
rebellion  was  originally  encouraged  by  hope  of  support  from 
England;  that  it  was  strengthened  at  once  by  the  concession 
of  belligerent  rights  on  the  ocean;  that  it  was  fed  to  the  end 
by  British  supplies ;  that  it  was  quickened  into  renewed  life  with 
every  report  from  the  British  pirates,  flaming  anew  with  every 
burning  ship ;  nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  without  British  inter- 
vention the  rebellion  would  have  soon  succumbed  under  the 
well-directed  efforts  of  the  national  Government.  Not  weeks 
or  months,  but  years  were  added  in  this  way  to  our  war,  so  full 
of  the  most  costly  sacrifice.  The  subsidies  which,  in  other  times, 
England  contributed  to  Continental  wars  were  less  effective  than 
the  aid  and  comfort  which  she  contributed  to  the  rebellion.  It 
cannot  be  said  too  often  that  the  naval  base  of  the  rebellion 
was  not  in  America,  but  in  England.  Mr.  Cobden  boldly  said 
in  the  House  of  Commons  that  England  made  war  from  her 
shores  on  the  United  States  ' '  with  an  amount  of  damage  to  that 


440  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

country  greater  than  in  many  ordinary  wars."  According  to 
this  testimony,  the  conduct  of  England  was  war;  but  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  this  war  was  carried  on  at  our  sole  cost. 
The  United  States  paid  for  a  war  waged  by  England  upon  the 
national  unity. 

The  sacrifice  of  precious  life  is  beyond  human  compensa- 
tion ;  but  there  may  be  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  national 
loss  in  money.  The  rebellion  was  suppressed  at  a  cost  of  more 
than  four  thousand  million  dollars,  a  considerable  portion  of 
which  has  been  already  paid,  leaving  twenty-five  hundred  mil- 
lions as  a  national  debt  to  burden  the  people.  If,  through 
British  intervention,  the  war  was  doubled  in  duration,  or  in 
any  way  extended,  as  cannot  be  doubted,  then  is  England 
justly  responsible  for  the  additional  expenditure  to  which  our 
country  was  doomed ;  and,  whatever  may  be  the  final  settlement 
of  these  great  accounts,  such  must  be  the  judgment  in  any 
chancery  which  consults  the  simple  equity  of  the  case. 

This  plain  statement,  without  one  word  of  exaggeration  or 
aggravation,  is  enough  to  exhibit  the  magnitude  of  the  national 
losses,  whether  from  the  destruction  of  our  commerce  or  the 
prolongation  of  the  war.  They  stand  before  us  mountain-high, 
with  a  base  broad  as  the  nation,  and  a  mass  stupendous  as 
the  rebellion  itself.  It  will  be  for  a  wise  statesmanship  to 
determine  how  this  fearful  accumulation,  like  Pelion  upon 
Ossa,  shall  be  removed  out  of  sight,  so  that  it  shall  no  longer 
overshadow  the  two  countries. 

Perhaps  I  ought  to  anticipate  an  objection  from  the  other 
side  to  the  effect  that  these  national  losses,  whether  from  the 
destruction  of  our  commerce  or  the  prolongation  of  the  war, 
are  indirect  and  remote,  so  as  not  to  be  a  just  cause  of  claim. 
This  is  expressed  at  the  common  law  by  the  rule  that  "damages 
must  be  for  the  natural  and  proximate  consequence  of  an  act." 
(2  Greenleaf,  Ev.,  p.  210.)  To  this  excuse  the  answer  is  ex- 
plicit. The  damages  suffered  by  the  United  States  are  twofold, 
individual  and  national,  being  in  each  case  direct  and  proxi- 
mate, although  in  the  one  case  individuals  suffered  and  in  the 
other  case  the  nation.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  there  may  be  oc- 
casions, where,  overtopping  all  individual  damages,  are  damages 
suffered  by  the  nation,  so  that  reparation  to  individuals  would 
be  insufficient;  nor  can  the  claim  of  the  nation  be  questioned 
simply  because  it  is  large,  or  because  the  evidence  with  regard 
to  it  is  different  from  that  in  the  case  of  an  individual.  In 
each  case  the  damage  must  be  proved  by  the  best  possible  evi- 
dence, and  this  is  all  that  law  or  reason  can  require.     In  the 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  441 

case  of  the  nation  the  evidence  is  historic;  and  this  is  enough. 
Impartial  history  will  record  the  national  losses  from  British 
intervention,  and  it  is  only  reasonable  that  the  evidence  of 
these  losses  should  not  be  excluded  from  judgment.  Because 
the  case  is  without  precedent,  because  no  nation  ever  before 
received  such  injury  from  a  friendly  power,  this  can  be  no 
reason  why  the  case  should  not  be  considered  on  the  evidence. 

Even  the  rule  of  the  common  law  furnishes  no  impediment ; 
for  our  damages  are  the  natural  consequence  of  what  was  done. 
But  the  rule  of  the  Roman  law,  which  is  the  rule  of  inter- 
national law,  is  broader  than  that  of  the  common  law.  The 
measure  of  damages,  according  to  the  Digest,  is,  ' '  whatever  may 
have  been  lost  or  might  have  been  gained" :  quantum  mihi  abest, 
quantumque  lucrari  potui.  This  rule  opens  the  door  to  ample 
reparation  for  all  damages,  whether  individual  or  national. 

There  is  another  rule  of  the  common  law,  in  harmony  with 
strict  justice,  which  is  applicable  to  the  case.  I  find  it  in 
the  law  relating  to  nuisances,  which  provides  that  there  may. 
be  two  distinct  proceedings,  first,  in  behalf  of  individuals,  and, 
secondly,  in  behalf  of  the  community.  Obviously  reparation  to 
individuals  does  not  supersede  reparation  to  the  community. 
The  proceeding  in  the  one  case  is  by  action  at  law,  and,  in  the 
other,  by  indictment.  The  reason  assigned  by  Blackstone  for 
the  latter  is  "  because  the  damages  being  common  to  all  the 
king's  subjects,  no  one  can  assign  his  particular  proportion 
of  it."  (3  Black.  Com.,  p.  219.)  But  this  is  the  very  case 
with  regard  to  damages  sustained  by  the  nation. 

A  familiar  authority  furnishes  an  additional  illustration, 
which  is  precisely  in  point: 

"No  person,  natural  or  corporate,  can  have  an  action  for  a 
public  nuisance,  or  punish  it;  but  only  the  king  in  his  public 
capacity  of  supreme  governor  and  pater  familias  of  the  king- 
dom. Yet  this  rule  admits  of  one  exception;  where  a  private 
person  suffers  some  extraordinary  damage  beyond  the  rest  of 
the  king's  subjects." — Tomlins'  Law  Diet.,  Art.  Nuisance. 

Applying  this  rule  to  the  present  case,  the  way  is  clear. 
Every  British  pirate  was  a  public  nuisance,  involving  the 
British  government,  which  must  respond  in  damages,  not  only 
to  the  individuals  who  have  suffered  but  also  to  the  national 
Government,  acting  as  pater  familias  for  the  common  good  of 
all  the  people. 

Thus  by  an  analogy  of  the  common  law,  in  the  case  of  a  public 
nuisance,  also  by  the  strict  rule  of  the  Roman  law,  which  enters 
so  largely  into  international  law,  and  even  by  the  rule  of  the 


442  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

common  law  relating  to  damages,  all  losses,  whether  individual 
or  national,  are  the  just  subject  of  claim.  It  is  not  I  who  say 
this;  it  is  the  law. 

Here  the  speaker  recounted  the  sharp  refusals  by 
Great  Britain  on  our  repeated  early  presentations  of 
the  claims.1 

Had  the  early  overtures  of  our  Government  been  promptly 
accepted,  or  had  there  been  at  any  time  a  just  recognition  of 
the  wrong  done,  I  doubt  not  that  this  great  question  would 
have  been  settled ;  but  the  rejection  of  our  very  moderate  propo- 
sitions and  the  protracted  delay,  which  afforded  an  opportunity 
to  review  the  case  in  its  different  bearings,  have  awakened 
the  people  to  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved.  If  our 
demands  are  larger  now  than  at  our  first  call  it  is  not  the  only 
time  in  history  where  such  a  rise  has  occurred.  The  story 
of  the  Sibyl  is  repeated,  and  England  is  the  Roman  king. 

Shall  these  claims  be  liquidated  and  canceled  promptly,  or 
allowed  to  slumber  until  called  into  activity  by  some  future 
exigency?  There  are  many  among  us  who,  taking  counsel  of  a 
sense  of  national  wrong,  would  leave  them  to  rest  without  set- 
tlement, so  as  to  furnish  a  precedent  for  retaliation  in  kind, 
should  England  find  herself  at  war.  There  are  many  in  Eng- 
land who,  taking  counsel  of  a  perverse  political  bigotry,  have 
spurned  them  absolutely;  and  there  are  others  who,  invoking 
the  point  of  honor,  assert  that  England  cannot  entertain  them 
without  compromising  her  honor.  Thus  there  is  peril  from 
both  sides.  It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  one  of  our  country- 
men saying  with  Shakespeare's  Jew,  "The  villainy  you  teach 
me  I  will  execute,  and  it  shall  go  hard,  but  I  will  better  the 
instruction";  nor  is  it  difficult  to  imagine  an  Englishman  firm 
in  his  conceit,  that  no  apology  can  be  made  and  nothing  paid. 
I  cannot  sympathize  with  either  side.  Be  the  claims  more  or 
less,  they  are  honestly  presented,  with  the  conviction  that  they 
are  just,  and  they  should  be  considered  candidly,  so  that  they 
shall  no  longer  lower,  like  a  cloud  ready  to  burst,  upon  two 
nations,  which,  according  to  their  inclinations,  can  do  each  other 
such  infinite  injury  or  such  infinite  good.  I  know  it  is  some- 
times said  that  war  between  us  must  come  sooner  or  later.  I 
do  not  believe  it.  But  if  it  must  come,  let  it  be  later,  and  then 
I  am  sure  it  will  never  come.  Meanwhile,  good  men  must  unite 
to  make  it  impossible. 

*See  Chapter  VII. 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  443 

The  Senate  promptly  rejected  the  Johnson-Clarendon 
Treaty  with  the  approval  of  President  Grant.  The  re- 
jection was  announced  to  the  British  Government  by 
John  Lothrop  Motley,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  Johnson 
as  our  minister  to  Great  Britain.  Hamilton  Fish,  our 
Secretary  of  State,  suggested  to  Mr.  Motley  that  nego- 
tiations be  temporarily  suspended,  though  with  main- 
tenance of  the  justice  of  our  claims. 

In  his  second  annual  message  (December,  1870) 
President  Grant  inaugurated  a  reopening  of  the  claims 
by  his  recommendation  that  Congress  should  authorize 
a  commission  to  fix  the  amounts,  ownership,  etc.,  of  the 
private  claims,  notifying  the  British  minister  at  Wash- 
ington (Sir  Edward  Thornton)  of  the  fact,  and  should 
give  the  United  States  Government  power  to  prosecute 
these,  as  well  as  its  own  claim  for  general  damages. 

This  declaration  of  the  President  made  a  profound 
impression  on  Great  Britain.  The  Franco- American 
war  was  then  in  progress,  and  Great  Britain  was  ap- 
prehensive that  she  might  become  involved  in  a  European 
conflict.  Therefore  she  was  apprehensive  that  in  event 
of  this  the  United  States  would  use  the  precedent  of 
the  Alabama  and  other  cases  to  engage  in  privateering 
against  British  commerce.  Accordingly,  early  in 
January,  1871,  she  sent  to  the  United  States  Sir  John 
Rose,  an  English  banker,  on  a  secret  mission  upon  the 
matter.  As  a  result  of  his  prompt  and  adroit  action, 
an  understanding  was  reached  between  the  two  countries 
which  resulted  in  a  proposal,  on  January  26,  from  the 
British  Government,  presented  by  its  minister  at  Wash- 
ington, to  reopen  the  settlement  of  the  fishery  question 
and  all  other  matters  affecting  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  to  British  America  by  establishing  a 
Joint  High  Commission  to  meet  at  Washington. 

Secretary  Fish  suggested  to  Minister  Thornton  that 
the  Alabama  claims  should  also  be  settled  by  this  com- 
mission. Under  instructions  cabled  by  the  Earl  of 
Granville,  British  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Minister 
Thornton  accepted  the  suggestion.  On  February  22  the 
British  commissioners  arrived  in  this  country,  having 
been  so  hurried  by  their  Government,  it  was  said,  that 


444  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

they  came  with  hand  luggage  only,  leaving  their  trunks 
to  follow  with  their  servants. 

The  British  commissioners  were  Earl  de  Grey;  Lord 
Ripon,  President  of  the  Queen's  Counsel;  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote,  late  Secretary  of  the  Exchequer;  Minister 
Thornton;  Sir  John  MacDonald,  Canadian  Premier;  and 
Montague  Bernard,  Oxford  Professor  of  International 
Law. 

The  American  commissioners  were  Secretary  Fish; 
Robert  C.  Schenck,  who  had  just  been  appointed  Minister 
to  Great  Britain;  Samuel  Nelson,  Associate- Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court;  E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  late  Attorney- 
General;  and  George  H.  Williams,  late  Senator  from 
Oregon.  The  American  commissioners  were  appointed 
by  the  President  with  confirmation  by  the  Senate. 

The  Joint  High  Commission  concluded  the  Treaty  of 
Washington  on  May  8,  1871.  By  this  the  Alabama 
claims  were  to  be  adjusted  by  five  arbitrators,  one  to 
be  named  by  Queen  Victoria,  one  by  President  Grant,  one 
by  the  King  of  Italy,  one  by  the  President  of  Switzer-. 
land,  and  one  by  the  Emperor  of  Brazil.  The  question 
was  to  be  settled  according  to  the  principles  of  Interna- 
tional Law  as  prevailing  at  the  time,  the  British  Govern- 
ment, to  save  its  face,  not  conceding  that  it  recognized 
these  principles  at  the  time  the  claims  originated,  when 
it  had  refused  to  admit  the  principles. 

Other  claims  for  damages  between  citizens  of  the  two 
countries  arising  during  the  war  were  to  be  adjusted 
by  a  commission  meeting  in  Washington;  and  the 
boundary  dispute  (San  Juan)  with  Canada  was  to  be 
referred  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany. 

On  the  Geneva  Commission  Great  Britain  ap- 
pointed Sir  Alexander  Cockburn;  the  United  States, 
Charles  Francis  Adams ;  Italy,  Count  Frederick  Sclopis ; 
Switzerland,  Jacob  Staempfli;  Brazil,  Baron  d'lta- 
juba.  The  commission  met  in  December,  1871,  and 
sat  until  September  14,  1872,  when  it  gave  judgment 
that  Great  Britain  should  settle  the  claims  in  full 
by  paying  $15,500,000  in  gold.  Sir  Alexander  Cock- 
burn  was  the  only  arbitrator  who  dissented  from  the 
award. 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS 


445 


The  American  case  before  the  arbitrators  was  pre- 
pared by  J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis  and  argued  by  William 
M.  Evarts,  Caleb  Cushing,  and  Morrison  R.  Waite.  The 
chief  counsel  for  Great  Britain  was  Sir  Roundell  Palmer. 
The  chief  contention  was  over  the  American  claims  for 


SETTLING   THE   ALABAMA    CLAIMS 


indirect  damages  (see  preceding  speech  of  Senator 
Sumner).  Several  times  dissolution  of  the  commission 
was  threatened  on  this  issue,  and  finally  these  claims 
were  disallowed. 

The  award  was  paid  by  Great  Britain  in  1872.  On 
June  23  of  this  year  Congress  created  a  Court  of  Claims 
to  distribute  the  award  among  the  individual  claimants. 
This  court  rendered  judgments  aggregating  $9,315,753. 
A  second  and  similar  court  was  established  on  June 
5,  1882.  Much  of  the  remainder  of  the  award  remains 
undistributed.  At  various  times  it  has  been  proposed, 
but  without  result,  to  return  the  balance  to  Great 
Britain. 

The  commission  to  adjust  other  war  claims  between 


446  GREAT    AMERICAN    DEBATES 

British  and  American  citizens  was  constituted  of  three 
appointees  by  President  Grant,  Qneen  Victoria,  and  by 
these  two  appointees.  It  met  at  Washington  on  Sep- 
tember 26,  1871,  and  after  several  adjournments  made 
its  final  award  at  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  on  September 
25,  1873.  All  American  claims  were  rejected  and  British 
claims  to  the  amount  of  $1,929,819  were  allowed.  This 
was  subsequently  paid. 

In  the  Treaty  of  Washington  an  attempt  was  made  to 
settle  definitely  the  fishery  dispute,  by  allowing  citizens 
of  the  United  States  to  take  fish  of  any  kind  except  shell- 
fish, in  all  Canadian  waters,  and  British  subjects  to  do 
the  same  in  all  waters  of  the  United  States  north  of  39° 
north  latitude.  But  as  it  was  asserted  by  Great  Britain 
that  the  privilege  of  fishing  in  American  waters  was 
worthless,  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  commission,  to  be 
composed  of  one  appointee  from  the  United  States,  one 
from  Great  Britain,  and  a  third  to  be  named  by  the  Em- 
peror of  Austria.  The  commission  met  in  Halifax,  Nova 
Scotia,  on  June  5,  1877.  It  awarded  Great  Britain  $5,- 
500,000  for  the  use  of  her  fisheries  for  twelve  years,  the 
period  of  the  treaty.  The  money  was  appropriated  by 
Congress  in  1878  with  the  proviso  that  the  fishery  arti- 
cles in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  "  ought  to  be  termi- 
nated at  the  earliest  period  consistent  with  the  provisions 
of  the  treaty. ' '  The  articles  were  therefore  discontinued 
on  July  1,  1885.  In  1888  a  new  treaty  was  negotiated, 
but  was  rejected  by  the  Senate.  Not  until  1910  was  the 
vexatious  fishery  dispute  finally  settled.  On  June  1  of 
that  year  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  submitted 
the  question  to  the  International  Court  of  Arbitration  at 
The  Hague.  The  decision  of  the  Court  was  announced  on 
September  7.    The  Court  decided: 

1.  Great  Britain  has  the  right  to  make  regulations 
for  the  preservation  of  her  fisheries  without  the  consent 
of  the  United  States. 

2.  Inhabitants  of  the  United  States  have  the  right  to 
employ  as  members  of  their  fishing  crews  persons  not 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States. 

3.  The   requirement  that  American   fishing  vessels 


THE  ALABAMA    CLAIMS  447 

report  at  Canadian  custom-houses  is  not  unreason- 
able. But  American  fishermen  must  not  be  subjected 
to  light,  harbor  or  other  dues  not  imposed  upon  Canadian 
fishermen. 

4.  Americans  are  entitled  to  fish  in  the  bays,  creeks 
and  harbors  of  the  treaty  coasts  of  Newfoundland  and 
the  Magdalen  Islands. 

The  Canadian  boundary  dispute  which  was  referred 
to  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  who  in  turn  referred  it  to 
experts,  was  settled  purely  on  the  legal  construction  of 
the  treaty  of  June  15,  1846,  and  on  geographical  facts. 
The  decision  (rendered  October  21,  1872)  was  in  favor 
of  the  United  States,  which  thereby  acquired  possession 
of  the  island  of  San  Juan  in  Pacific  waters.  This  was 
largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  American  case  was  pre- 
sented by  George  Bancroft,  minister  at  Berlin,  who  had 
been  minister  to  Great  Britain  when  the  treaty  of  1846 
was  made,  and  was  therefore  thoroughly  conversant  with 
the  subject.  The  decision  was  the  last  of  the  various 
boundary  disputes  which  had  been  a  source  of  irritation 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  (including 
Canada)  since  the  close  of  the  Revolution. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


12Apr'52SA 
W-pr  Sniff 


«% 


ty$ 


?, 


REC'D  ijS* 

dec  22  me 

9Mar'59RB§ 

?E8  w  'as 

j4Mar'60HR 

REC'D  LD 
WAS!  22  sjga 


CTBRary  USS 

°£C  19  196J 


IUN 


2SJApf64*A       I 

REC'D  LD 

APR1V64-9PM 


RECEIVED 

50 '66 -8  PM 

UOAH  DEPT. 


LD  21-95m-ll,'50(2877sl6)476 


y 


2% 4  64-2 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


